On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 02:55:28PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Ville Syrjala (2017-11-23 19:41:55)
From: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
We're supposed to examine msgs[i] and msgs[i+1] to see if they form a pair suitable for an indexed transfer. But in reality we're examining msgs[0] and msgs[1]. Fix this.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Daniel Kurtz djkurtz@chromium.org Cc: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Cc: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch Cc: Sean Paul seanpaul@chromium.org Fixes: 56f9eac05489 ("drm/i915/intel_i2c: use INDEX cycles for i2c read transactions") Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c index eb5827110d8f..165375cbef2f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c @@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ do_gmbus_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num) for (; i < num; i += inc) { inc = 1;
if (gmbus_is_index_read(msgs, i, num)) {
if (gmbus_is_index_read(&msgs[i], i, num)) {i is passed to gmbus_is_index_read() and used as an index into msgs. So this should be accounted for right?
Doh. Yep, this patch is nonsense.
The two other patches pushed to dinq. Thanks catching my mistake with this one.