Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-96651-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Message-ID: <6bacd2be-14d4-49cc-9c98-7010a5f9f9bc@quicinc.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 14:01:07 +0530
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] i2c: i2c-qcom-geni: Parse Error correctly in i2c GSI
 mode
Content-Language: en-US
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
CC: <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>, <andersson@kernel.org>, <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        <wsa@kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <dmaengine@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>, <quic_vdadhani@quicinc.com>
References: <20240307205539.217204-1-quic_msavaliy@quicinc.com>
 <cmtru4nvoab6g5emp2yrxnvfpvtrcsuna6dqsyewpagg3qmkau@r2zoj6vgslet>
 <9dbe987a-fdd1-4bec-b350-5936abf69b1b@quicinc.com>
 <yocn3rjxn37c7qniv2kkawgg2k7ghdwvrxcf77tdlpujnul3du@6oqvt5v4ykno>
From: Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <yocn3rjxn37c7qniv2kkawgg2k7ghdwvrxcf77tdlpujnul3du@6oqvt5v4ykno>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 3/8/2024 12:32 PM, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Mukesh,
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> Fixes: d8703554f4de ("i2c: qcom-geni: Add support for GPI DMA")
>>>
>>> I still don't understand what's the fix here. You are making a
>>> generic DMA error to be more specific... where is the bug? What
>>> exactly is broken now?
>>>
>> This is about being particular while reporting specific error.
>> Like i mentioned, instead of generic DMA transfer error, it should be
>> particular error 1) NACK 2) BUT_PROTO 3)ARB_LOST.
>> Ofcourse when data transfer via DMA fails, it can be considered as
>> DMA Txfer fail.
>> In summary so far driver was considering all failure as txfer failure,
>> but i2c has errors which are kind of response/condition on the bus.
> 
> I understand that, but what I need to know is: does the system
> crash? does the system act in unexpected way?
> 
> Moving from "you received an error" to "you received a nack" is
> not a fix, it's an improvement and it should not have the Fixes
> tag.
> 
> Having the Fixes tag decides which path this patch will take to
> to reach upstream. It's important because after it gets to
> upstream other people will take your patch and backport it older
> kernels.
> 
> I want to avoid this extra work when not necessary.
> 

Sure, then i think i should be removing fixes tag. It's not a crash but
it's an improvement. That being said, i think don't need to CC stable 
kernel list and i should remove fixes tag ?

>> Sorry if it confusing still, but please let me know if anything required to
>> be updated in  commit log which can bring clarity.
>>
>>> Besides, keep in mind, that commits with fixes tags get
>>> backported to older kernels (this one dates back to 5.18) and you
>>> should also Cc the stable mailing list:
>>>
>>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.18+
>>
>> Sure, will add into CC. was waiting for reviewed-by tag.
> 
> No need to resend.

ok, sure.

> 
> Thanks,
> Andi