Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-135121-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:14:23 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
To: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, 
	Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@foss.st.com>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 53/64] i2c: st: reword according to newest specification
Message-ID: <zpaizt3dhjbabotqylxph6hti7z4o4oq3mjqy4zmxjk74lpzdf@apnyh6m2fjst>
Mail-Followup-To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>, 
	Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@linux.microsoft.com>, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, 
	Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@foss.st.com>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240322132619.6389-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
 <20240322132619.6389-54-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
 <f94f293c-4756-458e-8ffa-a10baa8379d0@linux.microsoft.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zc6r4szvuyukhmxj"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f94f293c-4756-458e-8ffa-a10baa8379d0@linux.microsoft.com>


--zc6r4szvuyukhmxj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> > -	unsigned long timeout;
> > +	unsigned long time_left;
>=20
> Thanks for doing this. Is the timeout v/s time_left language also due to =
the specification change?
> A link to the specification(s) in the commit message would be nice to have

I admit it is probably a seperate change...

> > -	if (!timeout) {
> > -		dev_err(i2c_dev->dev, "Write to slave 0x%x timed out\n",
> > -				c->addr);

=2E.. motivated by this "if (!timeout) dev_err("timeout!")" which is super
confusing to read because the logic is paradox.


> > +	if (!time_left)
> >  		ret =3D -ETIMEDOUT;
> > -	}
>=20
> Why did we lost the dev_err() here?

Agreed. Another seperate change. A timeout is not something the user
need to be aware of. It can regularly happen while an EEPROM is erasing
a page. The client driver will probably handle it correctly by trying
again. Only if the client driver sees a problem, then the user should be
notified. But not in the controller driver.


--zc6r4szvuyukhmxj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=4MpW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--zc6r4szvuyukhmxj--