From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>, Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Stefan Lengfeld <contact@stefanchrist.eu>,
Phil Reid <preid@electromag.com.au>,
Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] i2c: core: introduce atomic transfers
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:40:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190325134020.GA3375@kunai> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190312154501.6v2symbq6eutp6dj@ninjato>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1193 bytes --]
> This series seems like a valid approach to me if we still want to
> respect the locking.
And I am leaning to that it is good enough. I think pragmatism is OK
here: The users who want this feature simply want to reboot their
system, mostly development systems. They can't reboot otherwise. Except
for the HW switch they are currently using anyhow.
The panic fault-injector can create an inconsistent situation on the I2C
bus when you want to reboot after an OOPS while a transfer was in
progress. However, if rebooting in such scenarios is critical for you,
you a) shouldn't reboot via I2C, and/or b) should have a watchdog in
place. We can't guarantee to always fix this sitution. At best, we could
just try to be better for some cases. However, this would mean having a
backdoor to skip the locking scheme which doesn't sound right. Maybe
just accepting the deadlock is not too bad because it will reliably
point out a design flaw of the system (hopefully during the development
stage)?
Final call for other thoughts/comments.
PS: I am still interested in the use of in_atomic() here. I wonder if it is
correct. If a change is needed, it should probably be a seperate series,
though.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-25 13:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-02 13:47 [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] i2c: core: introduce atomic transfers Wolfram Sang
2019-03-02 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] i2c: apply coding style for struct i2c_adapter Wolfram Sang
2019-03-15 12:15 ` Simon Horman
2019-03-27 13:15 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-03-02 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/7] i2c: core: use I2C locking behaviour also for SMBUS Wolfram Sang
2019-03-04 12:35 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-03-15 12:17 ` Simon Horman
2019-03-02 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/7] i2c: core: introduce callbacks for atomic transfers Wolfram Sang
2019-03-15 12:23 ` Simon Horman
2019-03-27 13:47 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-03-29 9:45 ` Simon Horman
2019-03-02 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/7] i2c: demux: WIP: handle the new atomic callbacks Wolfram Sang
2019-03-15 12:32 ` Simon Horman
2019-03-02 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/7] i2c: busses: omap: Add the master_xfer_irqless hook Wolfram Sang
2019-03-15 12:47 ` Simon Horman
2019-03-15 13:14 ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-03-27 13:50 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-03-29 9:45 ` Simon Horman
2019-03-02 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 6/7] i2c: tegra-bpmp: convert to use new atomic callbacks Wolfram Sang
2019-03-04 12:25 ` Timo Alho
2019-03-04 12:59 ` Thierry Reding
2019-03-15 12:42 ` Simon Horman
2019-03-26 20:20 ` Stefan Lengfeld
2019-03-27 13:51 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-03-02 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] i2c: algo: bit: HACK! add atomic callback Wolfram Sang
2019-03-02 16:22 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] i2c: core: introduce atomic transfers Andy Shevchenko
2019-03-12 15:45 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-03-25 13:40 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2019-03-04 18:11 ` Peter Rosin
2019-03-04 22:48 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-03-07 0:02 ` Peter Rosin
2019-03-27 13:53 ` Wolfram Sang
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=20190325134020.GA3375@kunai \
--to=wsa@the-dreams.de \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=contact@stefanchrist.eu \
--cc=j-keerthy@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=peda@axentia.se \
--cc=preid@electromag.com.au \
--cc=t-kristo@ti.com \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com \
/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).