From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>
To: daniel.stodden@gmail.com
Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, jdelvare@suse.de,
Daniel Stodden <dns@arista.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] i2c: Support Smbus 3.0 block sizes up to 255 bytes.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:40:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200728094037.GA980@ninjato> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200728004708.4430-1-daniel.stodden@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1207 bytes --]
Hi Daniel,
wow, that was fast! Thanks for the prototype.
> * I suggest to just settle on '3' for new macro and type names
> (I2C_SMBUS3_*, i2c_smbus3_*)
Yes, I agree.
>
> * Block size definitions maintain I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX (32). Only adds
> I2C_SMBUS3_BLOCK_MAX (255)
>
> - Means that drivers in drivers/i2c/busses/ default to their safe
> 32B block limit without refactoring.
This is totally fine for this patch. However, I still think I will do
the renaming to I2C_SMBUS2_BLOCK_MAX in kernel space later. Just so
people will understand by looking at the code that this is an old limit
which can be removed if there is interest.
> - __u8 block[I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX + 2]; /* block[0] is used for length */
> + __u8 block[I2C_SMBUS3_BLOCK_MAX + 2]; /* block[0] is used for length */
> /* and one more for user-space compatibility */
I thought about this, too, and wondered if this isn't a size regression
in userspace with every i2c_smbus_data getting 8 times the size? But
maybe it is worth if backwards compatibility is maintained in an
otherwise not so intrusive manner? Jean, what do you think?
Happy hacking everyone,
Wolfram
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-28 9:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-28 0:47 [RFC PATCH] i2c: Support Smbus 3.0 block sizes up to 255 bytes daniel.stodden
2020-07-28 9:40 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2020-07-28 10:18 ` Daniel Stodden
2020-07-28 10:36 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-07-28 11:27 ` Daniel Stodden
2020-07-28 17:04 ` Jean Delvare
2020-07-28 21:16 ` Daniel Stodden
2020-07-29 10:51 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-07-28 11:16 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-07-28 11:40 ` Daniel Stodden
2020-07-28 12:46 ` Daniel Stodden
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200728094037.GA980@ninjato \
--to=wsa@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel.stodden@gmail.com \
--cc=dns@arista.com \
--cc=jdelvare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).