Hi Jarkko,
On 9/28/22 07:49, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
- Hans
I forgot to Cc you yesterday even especially had a question for you :-(
Yes I can test this on BYT and CHT hw where one of the i2c-designware busses is shared with the PUNIT. I have added this patch to me personal tree which I regularly test on these kinda devices.
I will let you know if I hit any issues, if you don't hear anything from me then you can assume I have not hit any issues :)
You also mention being especially interested on testing on hw where the interrupt line is shared with other devices. I don't think the i2c-designware interrupts are ever shared with other hw on the BYT/CHT devices I have.
Regards,
Hans
Patch here and my comment to Andy below.
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/patch/20220927135644.1656369-...
On 9/27/22 17:35, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 04:56:44PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
#define STATUS_IDLE 0x0
A side note: I think the clearer is to use STATUS_MASK and use '&= ~STATUS_MASK' instead of '= STATUS_IDLE' in the affected pieces of the code.
-#define STATUS_WRITE_IN_PROGRESS 0x1 -#define STATUS_READ_IN_PROGRESS 0x2 +#define STATUS_ACTIVE 0x1 +#define STATUS_WRITE_IN_PROGRESS 0x2 +#define STATUS_READ_IN_PROGRESS 0x4
Can we at the same time replace them with BIT()?
...
Otherwise looks good to me, Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
Good points. I'll add these to follow up patches.
Jarkko