Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:38:52 +0200
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>,
        Manikanta Maddireddy <mmaddireddy@nvidia.com>,
        Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com>, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] i2c: tegra: Better handle case where CPU0 is busy
 for a long time
Message-ID: <20200427103851.GB24446@kunai>
References: <77a31b2f-f525-ba9e-f1ae-2b474465bde4@gmail.com>
 <470b4de4-e98a-1bdc-049e-6259ad603507@nvidia.com>
 <d2531fc1-b452-717d-af71-19497e14ef00@gmail.com>
 <a5198024-7273-74c4-b4f4-3a29d042bc36@nvidia.com>
 <f8fb1f7f-2497-033e-ff2c-c86c6caa9706@gmail.com>
 <fd1ca178-1ea3-851f-20a6-10bf00453ce3@nvidia.com>
 <a5734f19-254e-b6bc-e791-fa1ac63f11a4@gmail.com>
 <79f6560e-dbb5-0ae1-49f8-cf1cd95396ec@nvidia.com>
 <20200427074837.GC3451400@ulmo>
 <c1190858-eaea-8e94-b4d1-1cf28076c330@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
In-Reply-To: <c1190858-eaea-8e94-b4d1-1cf28076c330@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:52:10PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 27.04.2020 10:48, Thierry Reding пишет:
> ...
> >> Maybe but all these other problems appear to have existed for sometime
> >> now. We need to fix all, but for the moment we need to figure out what's
> >> best for v5.7.
> > 
> > To me it doesn't sound like we have a good handle on what exactly is
> > going on here and we're mostly just poking around.
> > 
> > And even if things weren't working quite properly before, it sounds to
> > me like this patch actually made things worse.
> 
> There is a plenty of time to work on the proper fix now. To me it sounds
> like you're giving up on fixing the root of the problem, sorry.

From what I understood, there were (at least) two regressions reported.
So, to me, it makes sense to revert the change, so for upstream users
everything stays "the same". Of course, this does not mean it should
stay like this forever and you guys can work on fixing the root causes.
I'll happily apply them for this release when you are confident with the
results.