MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150421072445.GA18051@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
References: <20150420221116.GA1261@dtor-ws>
	<20150421072445.GA18051@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:16:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyw4oOY4oVs=uTD98XPC2WuWhgYYStH+R5P2y=wV8mONg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: cope with large i2c transfers
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?VmlsbGUgU3lyasOkbMOk?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, Nick Dyer <nick.dyer@itdev.co.uk>,
        intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        DRI <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 885
Lines: 19

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Though I am tempted to say we should impose the 256 byte limit for
> stable@

If the docs say 256, I'd suggest using that not just for stable, but
for anything. Maybe 511 bytes work everywhere and the docs are just
wrong. And maybe it doesn't. I'd rather start out conservative, and if
somebody can show that it really matters, and that 511 bytes really is
always safe, we can do it then. But I don't imagine that the
difference between "chunk it up to max 511 bytes" is really noticeably
faster than "chunk it up to 256 bytes max".

               Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/