Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <1ee061f4-8388-4a35-e14e-853482d5fc0a@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 13:26:55 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/102.0 Thunderbird/102.3.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: i801: Prefer async probe
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>, Mani Milani <mani@chromium.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>
References: <20220826074430.1333272-1-mani@chromium.org>
 <20220929174334.44d3e6d9@endymion.delvare>
From:   Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220929174334.44d3e6d9@endymion.delvare>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/29/22 18:43, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c
>> index a176296f4fff..e06509edc5f3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c
>> @@ -1838,6 +1838,7 @@ static struct pci_driver i801_driver = {
>>   	.shutdown	= i801_shutdown,
>>   	.driver		= {
>>   		.pm	= &i801_pm_ops,
>> +		.probe_type = PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS,
>>   	},
>>   };
>>   
> 
> Seems reasonable. I can't foresee any problem that would occur from
> this change, and preliminary testing on my own workstation is OK.
> 
> Jarkko, Heiner, Wolfram, can you think of any reason why we should NOT
> apply this change?
> 
I tested this on two systems. One with EE1004-compliant SPD EEPROM and 
another with touchpad connected to RMI4 SMB bus.

Average boot time improved ~20 ms over 5 boots on the first system and 
did not see any issue with the touchpad on second.

Tested-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>