lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 6/6] i2c: mpc: Interrupt driven transfer
Hi Chris,

> Yep I plan on being around. I've got access to a couple of designs with
> P2040 and T2081 so hopefully that's sufficient to deal with any
> regressions. One issue is a lack of different i2c devices (the systems
> we have tend to use the same devices) but hopefully any reports of
> regression will be from people with access to such devices.

Sounds very good to me.

> > That kind of leads to the question if you want to
> > step up as the maintainer for this driver?
> Sure can do. It'd be nice if it was someone from NXP but I think they've
> lost interest in the PowerPC based SoCs. Should I send a patch for
> MAINTAINERS? If so does that go through the i2c tree?

Yes, please send a patch and I will merge it via I2C. I don't have hope
for someone from NXP because it was difficult enough to get maintainers
for the actively sold SoCs.

> > Only thing I noticed was a "BUG" and "BUG_ON" and wonder if we really
> > need to halt the kernel in that case. Maybe WARN is enough?
>
> Yeah I think they can both be WARN variants. The one in mpc_xfer() can
> happily continue. It's a little less clear what I should do in
> mpc_i2c_do_action() if the WARN is ever hit but in theory it should be
> an unreachable case anyway so the only thing that could get there is
> some kind of memory corruption which would likely cause a crash elsewhere.

Yeah, please change to WARN.

> Do you want me to send a V3 of just that patch?

Yes, plus the MAINTAINERS patch, please.

Happy hacking,

Wolfram

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-12 20:18    [W:0.118 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site