Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-20 Thread Wolfram Sang
Hi, thanks for the list! > latest, v3 (same as v2, fixed subject line): > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/412095/ Yes, I have an eye on this one. Only waiting for the test results from older platforms by Aaro. > Sorry, for making so much noise. No problem, this is part of the process. Still

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-20 Thread Alexander Kochetkov
Hello, 18 нояб. 2014 г., в 19:12, Wolfram Sang написал(а): > I got confused with all the patches sent out for his issues. Can you ack > them once you are fine and mention if you consider them important for > this or the next release? That would be really helpful! Duplicate/Obsolete (v1): https

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-18 Thread Felipe Balbi
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 07:31:44PM +0300, Alexander Kochetkov wrote: > > > Still, as of now we can't consider what Alexander mentions a bug. Good > > to get it sorted out, but not -rc material. > > > > Actually, I focused on fixing issues then i2c-omap acts as master in a > multi master environm

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-18 Thread Alexander Kochetkov
> Still, as of now we can't consider what Alexander mentions a bug. Good > to get it sorted out, but not -rc material. > Actually, I focused on fixing issues then i2c-omap acts as master in a multi master environment. And must say, that current linux/mainline driver work perfectly with minor f

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-18 Thread Wolfram Sang
> > > right, Linux doesn't support being the slave. That's also a missing > > > feature, not a bug. > > > > This is going to change. I sent out RFC patches for slave support [1] > > and will send V1 this week. This won't affect your driver, though, > > unless you implement the backend into it. >

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-18 Thread Felipe Balbi
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 03:41:53PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > submit write request to General Call Address. In that case ISR could > > > not correctly handle RDR (or XRDY, ARDY, or that ever). Thats becase > > > i2c-omap driver doesn't correctly handle i2c-controller's slave mode. > > > >

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-17 Thread Wolfram Sang
> > submit write request to General Call Address. In that case ISR could > > not correctly handle RDR (or XRDY, ARDY, or that ever). Thats becase > > i2c-omap driver doesn't correctly handle i2c-controller's slave mode. > > right, Linux doesn't support being the slave. That's also a missing > fea

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-16 Thread Felipe Balbi
Hi, On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 08:42:03AM +0300, Alexander Kochetkov wrote: > Hello again. > > > (please, never top-post) > Sorry. > > Sorry for the inaccurate presentation of ideas. I am not a native > English speaker. neither am I ;-) > First about patches: > [PATCH 1/2] and [PATCH 2/2] - inten

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-14 Thread Alexander Kochetkov
Hello again. > (please, never top-post) Sorry. Sorry for the inaccurate presentation of ideas. I am not a native English speaker. First about patches: [PATCH 1/2] and [PATCH 2/2] - intended to solve two independent problems. They were sent as series, In the future, try not to do so, In order no

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-14 Thread Felipe Balbi
Hi again, On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 09:47:56PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > how ? This is an interesting bug which deserves further explanation. > > > > Look at the loops above, and at the omap_i2c_complete_cmd: > > > > static inline void > > omap_i2c_complete_cmd(struct omap_i2c_dev *dev, u16

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-14 Thread Felipe Balbi
Hi, (please, never top-post) On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 05:37:41AM +0300, Alexander Kochetkov wrote: > Hi Felipe, > > Initially you made the change (66b9298878742f08cb6e79b7c7d5632d782fd1e1): > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c?id=6

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-14 Thread Alexander Kochetkov
Hi Felipe, Initially you made the change (66b9298878742f08cb6e79b7c7d5632d782fd1e1): https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c?id=66b9298878742f08cb6e79b7c7d5632d782fd1e1 dev_dbg(dev->dev, "IRQ (ISR = 0x%04x)\n", stat);

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-14 Thread Felipe Balbi
Hi, On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 05:20:52AM +0400, Alexander Kochetkov wrote: > commit 66b9298878742f08cb6e79b7c7d5632d782fd1e1 (i2c: omap: switch over > to do {} while loop) changed the interrupt handler to abort transfers > in case interrupt serviced 100 times but commit's comment states that > "No f

[PATCH 2/2] i2c: omap: fix "Too much work in one IRQ" irq handling

2014-11-14 Thread Alexander Kochetkov
commit 66b9298878742f08cb6e79b7c7d5632d782fd1e1 (i2c: omap: switch over to do {} while loop) changed the interrupt handler to abort transfers in case interrupt serviced 100 times but commit's comment states that "No functional changes otherwise.". Also, original commit could report status 0 (no er