On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 21:54, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jae Hyun Yoo > <jae.hyun.yoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 10/8/2019 1:31 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:13:11PM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote: > > >> In case of master pending state, it should not trigger the master > > >> command because this H/W is sharing the same data buffer for slave > > >> and master operations, so this commit fixes the issue with making > > >> the master command triggering happen when the state goes to active > > >> state. > > > > > > nit: Makes sense, but can you explain what might happen without your > > > change? > > > > If we don't use this fix, a master command could corrupt data in the > > shared buffer if H/W is still on processing slave operation at the > > timing. > > Right, can you add that to the commit message? > > Is this trivially reproducible? We might want to submit this > separately as a bugfix. > > Actually yeah, can you send this separately as a bugfix? I think we > might want to include this in 5.4. > > Wolfram and Joel, what do you think? Yes, good suggestion. A corruption fix should be merged I think. Always send bug fixes upstream with Fixes tags so they land in the stable tree. This is preferable to sending them separately to the openbmc for inclusion in that tree, and potentially reaches a wider audience. Cheers, Joel
