Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-125539-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 00:54:56 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
Cc: konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, andersson@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, Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@quicinc.com>, 
	quic_vdadhani@quicinc.com, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] i2c: i2c-qcom-geni: Parse Error correctly in i2c GSI
 mode
Message-ID: <mo7d5ayw4gy2lqb6e5o4ijegodx6a5naytatwmoblujftwdjfg@sc4amlo3va7g>
References: <20240313052639.1747078-1-quic_msavaliy@quicinc.com>
 <171161140136.2698925.4294566764047886777.b4-ty@kernel.org>
 <ZgbwJAb7Ffktf554@matsya>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZgbwJAb7Ffktf554@matsya>

Hi Vinod,

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:15:24PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 28-03-24, 08:36, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:56:39 +0530, Mukesh Kumar Savaliya wrote:
> > > I2C driver currently reports "DMA txn failed" error even though it's
> > > NACK OR BUS_PROTO OR ARB_LOST. Detect NACK error when no device ACKs
> > > on the bus instead of generic transfer failure which doesn't give any
> > > specific clue.
> > > 
> > > Make Changes inside i2c driver callback handler function
> > > i2c_gpi_cb_result() to parse these errors and make sure GSI driver
> > > stores the error status during error interrupt.
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > 
> > Applied to i2c/i2c-host-next on
> > 
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/local tree
> 
> You applied changes to dmaengine driver without my ack! I dont agree to
> the approach here, we could do better

This patch has been around for quite some time and there has been
time to review it. Altrady two people have approved it.

This patch has already been merged once via the i2c with the
agreement of everyone, but reverted for a trivial failure.

Your review come after I have merged the patch (I did merge it
even earlier, but forgot to send the notification, which was
anyway sent before your review).

Above all, I appreciate your review, but it wouldn't be fair to
revert it now. If Mukesh is OK, I can do it, otherwise we can
send subsequent patches.

Mukesh, please let me know what's your preference.

Andi