Received: by 2002:ac0:a679:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id p54csp1389781imp; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 02:30:36 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IY3fSE0fw03jZd2qRJ4C9wZ85vU0C+wVCEzsS65SAlGXzu2rwhqKUgg0CxmTE0Bf+hiGj21 X-Received: by 2002:a63:a70b:: with SMTP id d11mr3213825pgf.213.1550831436885; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 02:30:36 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1550831436; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=SyoQX5otLmYqc7UlyYVHj32i/hssIblEaYNFhvAcMyVn51Gy7hOmhd150QVpKInol3 xzulVpQlcs2J4Bgs4OiVHwFpeC3hlO9x4D5QHeXidme49i27wZW1AlkdwmjGxKZ3zKkD v41fpuToB9oq6DQZUvQDEfHWeJssfttA9sr6++Ui0lNUGQ6wQKHVfLxIPfNTZUjG/E/8 SxDc/mE5mfdztsmAo5xnJkE/nnPyO0y8Hb4Dtt9oJe4pTM3OOkX/HnBDH9b5wuRD+ab3 AWX6EZu65btSU3Y9LLwHVpiQ41gxkXgGHvun7irtmxtKplDvRbCrjrFEtbpnp9A/I2Xi Z9xQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=2BW1WaIqnPlfe85exkL/CSajR3FAfDHOAO1P1d23NgA=; b=e40pE7cQgeEBvbat1TtupxibO1FOKo+KFoNN5kI4H6I7wnkYKTRbO/9YAraqEgT5lW SWNimTQaMDuMx4EqQ+2yZbNyn+epVVL5kLmh1ty0yhGFhMymPFR/wupFtmEnCIaFIysN zBP1/mLo7bXaBTEoUb+zquh9E0givGnPdPoPICDXjI9Sg3zzCwVor6C+ISnrHwgtN91K merutwmf1dQwm2HLakH24XpzRGPibt5zYBDqUY72Ql9zjkhTaGFb/e1ktD4jbWV8DgGg j6H9ow7cAC55j/KP5K2VhikknsCaDwrvTTfH4SFu29vuotnGh1tHByJ7TvoAgE8TOY8W tUow== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=cirrus.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j9si999689pgp.410.2019.02.22.02.30.21; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 02:30:36 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=cirrus.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726763AbfBVK2n (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 05:28:43 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com ([67.231.152.168]:57106 "EHLO mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725944AbfBVK2n (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 05:28:43 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0077474.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1MAIljJ008956; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:28:38 -0600 Authentication-Results: ppops.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com Received: from mail4.cirrus.com ([87.246.98.35]) by mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qpfts1sep-1; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:28:37 -0600 Received: from EX17.ad.cirrus.com (unknown [172.20.9.81]) by mail4.cirrus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92227611C8AF; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:29:16 -0600 (CST) Received: from imbe.wolfsonmicro.main (198.61.95.81) by EX17.ad.cirrus.com (172.20.9.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:28:37 +0000 Received: from ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com (ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com [198.61.86.93]) by imbe.wolfsonmicro.main (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1MASaTS019440; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:28:36 GMT Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:28:36 +0000 From: Charles Keepax To: Benjamin Tissoires CC: Wolfram Sang , Jim Broadus , Linux I2C , lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Allow recovery of the initial IRQ by an I2C client device. Message-ID: <20190222102836.GC130153@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com> References: <20190219193027.13882-1-jbroadus@gmail.com> <20190221232609.d4vxl3osj6mwooey@katana> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902220073 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 11:15:59AM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 12:26 AM Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:30:27AM -0800, Jim Broadus wrote: > > > A previous change allowed I2C client devices to discover new IRQs upon > > > reprobe by clearing the IRQ in i2c_device_remove. However, if an IRQ was > > > assigned in i2c_new_device, that information is lost. > > > > > > For example, the touchscreen and trackpad devices on a Dell Inspiron laptop > > > are I2C devices whose IRQs are defined by ACPI extended IRQ types. The > > > client device structures are initialized during an ACPI walk. After > > > removing the i2c_hid device, modprobe fails. > > > > > > This change caches the initial IRQ value in i2c_new_device and then resets > > > the client device IRQ to the initial value in i2c_device_remove. > > > > > > Fixes: 6f108dd70d30 ("i2c: Clear client->irq in i2c_device_remove") > > > Signed-off-by: Jim Broadus > > > > Adding Benjamin to CC > > Sorry, I should have answered earlier. > > I am a little bit hesitant regarding this patch. The effect is > correct, and I indeed realized a few weeks ago that something were > wrong as we couldn't rmmod/modprobe i2c-hid. > > 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. > I would be somewhat inclined to agree here, it does seem odd that on some paths we are allocating the IRQ on the new_device side and on some on the probe side. > 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 > This would be my thinking as well we should merge this to avoid the regression. Thanks, Charles