[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6183140.lOV4Wx5bFT@sven-desktop>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2025 07:59:25 +0200
From: Sven Eckelmann <sven@...fation.org>
To: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Jonas Jelonek <jelonek.jonas@...il.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Harshal Gohel <hg@...onwunderlich.de>,
Simon Wunderlich <sw@...onwunderlich.de>
Subject:
Re: [PATCH i2c-host v4 5/5] i2c: rtl9300: Implement I2C block read and write
On Sunday, 10 August 2025 00:11:20 CEST Jonas Jelonek wrote:
> Hi Sven,
>
> On 09.08.2025 08:40, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> > @@ -314,6 +343,7 @@ static u32 rtl9300_i2c_func(struct i2c_adapter *a)
> > {
> > return I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_QUICK | I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE |
> > I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE_DATA | I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_WORD_DATA |
> > + I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_I2C_BLOCK |
I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_WRITE_I2C_BLOCK |
> > I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA;
> > }
> >
>
> Is there a specific reason you explicitly use I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_I2C_BLOCK
and
> *_WRITE_* instead of I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK ?
To be honest, I've just adopted this from the original version of the patch
and didn't spend a second on thinking about a potential simplification.
So yes, thank you for pointing it out. I will integrate it in the patchset and
most likely send out a new version addressing all the comments (until then)
at ~8 pm (GMT+2). The preview can be found at
https://git.open-mesh.org/linux-merge.git/log/?h=b4/i2c-rtl9300-multi-byte
Kind regards,
Sven
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists