Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Jun 2014 12:28:43 -0400 | From | Murali Karicheri <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] i2c: davinci: Add block read functionality for IPMI |
| |
On 5/22/2014 5:00 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for the patch. > >>> +/* capabilities */ >>> +#define I2C_CAPABILITIES (I2C_FUNC_I2C | I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL | \ >>> + I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_BLOCK_DATA) > I don't see the need for a seperate define. > >>> + >>> struct davinci_i2c_dev { >>> struct device *dev; >>> void __iomem *base; >>> @@ -318,7 +322,13 @@ i2c_davinci_xfer_msg(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg >>> *msg, int stop) >>> davinci_i2c_write_reg(dev, DAVINCI_I2C_SAR_REG, msg->addr); >>> >>> dev->buf = msg->buf; >>> - dev->buf_len = msg->len; >>> + >>> + /* if first received byte is length, set buf_len = 0xffff as flag */ >>> + if (msg->flags & I2C_M_RECV_LEN) >>> + dev->buf_len = 0xffff; > a) this magic value should be a define instead of a comment > b) i2c messages easily have a 16 bit range, so 0xffff is a troublesome > choice. > >>> + else >>> + dev->buf_len = msg->len; >>> + >>> dev->stop = stop; >>> >>> davinci_i2c_write_reg(dev, DAVINCI_I2C_CNT_REG, dev->buf_len); @@ -456,7 >>> +466,7 @@ i2c_davinci_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg msgs[], int num) >>> >>> static u32 i2c_davinci_func(struct i2c_adapter *adap) { >>> - return I2C_FUNC_I2C | I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL; >>> + return I2C_CAPABILITIES; >>> } >>> >>> static void terminate_read(struct davinci_i2c_dev *dev) @@ -528,10 +538,32 @@ static >>> irqreturn_t i2c_davinci_isr(int this_irq, void *dev_id) >>> >>> case DAVINCI_I2C_IVR_RDR: >>> if (dev->buf_len) { >>> - *dev->buf++ = >>> - davinci_i2c_read_reg(dev, >>> - DAVINCI_I2C_DRR_REG); >>> + *dev->buf++ = davinci_i2c_read_reg(dev, >>> + DAVINCI_I2C_DRR_REG); >>> + /* >>> + * check if the first received byte is message >>> + * length, i.e, I2C_M_RECV_LEN >>> + */ >>> + if (dev->buf_len == 0xffff) >>> + dev->buf_len = *(dev->buf - 1) + 1; > Please rework the code to get rid of the '- 1' and '+ 1'. They look > hackish and make the code less readable. > >>> + >>> dev->buf_len--; >>> + /* >>> + * send NACK/STOP bits BEFORE last byte is >>> + * received >>> + */ >>> + if (dev->buf_len == 1) { >>> + w = davinci_i2c_read_reg(dev, >>> + DAVINCI_I2C_MDR_REG); >>> + w |= DAVINCI_I2C_MDR_NACK; >>> + davinci_i2c_write_reg(dev, >>> + DAVINCI_I2C_MDR_REG, w); >>> + >>> + w |= DAVINCI_I2C_MDR_STP; >>> + davinci_i2c_write_reg(dev, >>> + DAVINCI_I2C_MDR_REG, w); >>> + } >>> + > Looks like an unreleated change to me? Why is this I2C_M_RECV_LEN > specific? > > Kind regards, > > Wolfram Wolfram,
Thanks for reviewing the patch. I will review your comments and get back to you. This patch is tested on a customer board and thus it might be a while before I can incorporate these changes and provide an updated patch to the list. Meanwhile I will be reviewing the comment in the next few weeks and get back to you in case I have questions.
Thanks and regards,
Murali
| |