From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB07C43381 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:47:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D6120657 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:47:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="G2aImyng" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726425AbfBVSrp (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:47:45 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f196.google.com ([209.85.222.196]:43032 "EHLO mail-qk1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725878AbfBVSro (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:47:44 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f196.google.com with SMTP id f196so1732287qke.10; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:47:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vaT+im/exFXiuwgGdAqRUQFYEcuWfEumIF7pOvOGNuQ=; b=G2aImyngdqoEn4nPid+PW+3gWZZRSs52AQMsz/kgQraCbgA1FFu9e6OBV8ASFFLWYY RlZc1APWE3oiNWwXIPwumapvcqGYaSLUpuj7vWhAaTD4AKXaS4B9LchMYDUCqiZmwW8/ D6cIgAjHhUvWsdq+TB1c2Ekv7LN0x6wvdKnCYurfhJuBjWqxYwinpW4Q3B+6DpvHOnAT scxy6vlj7FJiYRlsiH/M/A/LQ3ZnjKYTEAqTrTINTxVPfMqAf8muCcCPbkXzQ8YdTpkm MnkP/DL5nOtOjCYpAeFDZXjoCiH7QJuvA9JCYz8r/folWKOSnalUzrHVSzYh6i5ePh56 sTzg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vaT+im/exFXiuwgGdAqRUQFYEcuWfEumIF7pOvOGNuQ=; b=XyRmR6ZUOHHz7iNesUlOfDPRtj0McZL/ASFDm7Sh8cufCKW8jppR9wXrscUJR+SmlG mq+C/hW+I3+ljUJcan9PMytzZW/lM0EmtIAT2jZKyQKyJgUdJHDVKGMyfOfZhqTnKRvr 5PUWJSzNE8qHGhf4Q1eYQZuh9LsQ4feL4lkgCkF3stMNO22Wgf45FrzPzcfNwHoGNdi/ 4349eHqMN4cP564ZMPCQzd3CSoj37PQ9QT95NY0QQaa9CpIXGL6DrRvTn2zQx+fkNmcV RQnrqmYP37ENnPFtBlrodh5bnQPAtmDAexr5Jm+vQ2HeMTs3k35IImusRWuROxP/iWap UfRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAub+Wi0ZylS5VMV5oLSP4I9r1oGEa61ep4Yd4kvuJvxT7CqNH1Nv 97Q1MfYaD/tfojVxJlgM8tZNkQazEVa1BqGVKTw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IanaQzYkmKzcAyH81NKHNEEQstgDAaHCvvQbZk0TbVaKuWGkJegoO4TduDZibE+RtiZNlvfsddkTQ/+2aU5h0k= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:13ad:: with SMTP id m13mr4105843qki.59.1550861263361; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:47:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190219193027.13882-1-jbroadus@gmail.com> <20190221232609.d4vxl3osj6mwooey@katana> <20190222102335.GA1771@kunai> <20190222103019.GD130153@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com> <20190222113159.GB1771@kunai> In-Reply-To: <20190222113159.GB1771@kunai> From: Jim Broadus Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:47:32 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Allow recovery of the initial IRQ by an I2C client device. To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Charles Keepax , Benjamin Tissoires , Linux I2C , lkml Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:32 AM Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > But I still have the feeling that the problem is not solved at the > > > > right place. In i2c_new_device() we are storing parts of the fields of > > > > struct i2c_board_info, and when resetting the irq we are losing > > > > information. This patch solves that, but I wonder if the IRQ should > > > > not be 'simply' set in i2c_device_probe(). This means we also need to > > > > store the .resources of info, but I have a feeling this will be less > > > > error prone in the future. > > > > > > > > But this is just my guts telling me something is not right. I would > > > > perfectly understand if we want to get this merged ASAP. > > > > > > > > So given that the code is correct, this is my: > > > > Reviewed-by: Benjamin Tissoires > > > > > > > > But at least I have expressed my feelings :) > > > > > > Which I can relate to very much. I see the code solves the issue but my > > > feeling is that we are patching around something which should be handled > > > differently in general. > > > > > > Is somebody willing to research this further? > > > > > > Thanks for your input. > > > > > > > I would be willing to have more of a look at it but am slightly > > nervous I am not right person as all the systems I currently work > > with are DT based so don't really exemplify the issue at all. > > Thank you! Well, I'll be there, too. Discussing, reviewing, testing. And > if we have Benjamin for that on board as well, then I think we have a > good start for that task :) Others are more than welcome to join, too, > of course. > I'm also more familiar with device-tree (just came across this on my personal laptop) but happy to review and test at the risk of learning something.