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:   Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:07:47 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To:     Marten Lindahl <martenli@axis.com>
Cc:     linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel@axis.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: exynos5: Preserve high speed master code
Message-ID: <20210217080747.a7nqzbotszwlb3dd@kozik-lap>
References: <20210215190322.22094-1-marten.lindahl@axis.com>
 <20210216075141.o4wjnwmmjze2p3cn@kozik-lap>
 <20210216220933.2wzmft72bhjptzl3@axis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210216220933.2wzmft72bhjptzl3@axis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:09:33PM +0100, Marten Lindahl wrote:
> > Any reason why not "|= MASTER_ID(i2c->adap.nr)" here instead of more
> > expensive IO read? It's quite important because your current code will
> > bitwise-or old I2C slave address with a new one... This should break
> > during tests with multiple I2C slave devices, shouldn't it?
> > 
> 
> You are correct. It is better to use the macro instead, and yes,
> safer too. I only have one device that supports high speed i2c, but
> I get your point. It could potentially break.
> 
> > On which HW did you test it?
> 
> I used an Artpec development board as master and INA230EVM board
> as slave.

Artpec development board with? What SoC?

Best regards,
Krzysztof