Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-96965-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 13:00:53 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
To: Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@quicinc.com>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] i2c: i2c-qcom-geni: Parse Error correctly in i2c GSI
 mode
Message-ID: <tbbpjk7ddpqnbtdu26pdcj3kzpanbih7cnok6vudbjq32qeoly@rrdsi2mgfsfp>
References: <20240307205539.217204-1-quic_msavaliy@quicinc.com>
 <cmtru4nvoab6g5emp2yrxnvfpvtrcsuna6dqsyewpagg3qmkau@r2zoj6vgslet>
 <9dbe987a-fdd1-4bec-b350-5936abf69b1b@quicinc.com>
 <yocn3rjxn37c7qniv2kkawgg2k7ghdwvrxcf77tdlpujnul3du@6oqvt5v4ykno>
 <6bacd2be-14d4-49cc-9c98-7010a5f9f9bc@quicinc.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6bacd2be-14d4-49cc-9c98-7010a5f9f9bc@quicinc.com>

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 ?

yes, don't need to do anything else, I will take care of
everything from now on. If Wolfram accepts a last minute pull
request, I can queue this up for 6.9.

Thank you,
Andi