Re: [PATCH V3] i2c: designware: fix wrong tx/rx fifo for ACPI

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 21:21 +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 09:02:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > +	tx_fifo_depth = ((param1 >> 16) & 0xff) + 1;
> > > +	rx_fifo_depth = ((param1 >> 8)  & 0xff) + 1;
> > > +	if (!dev->tx_fifo_depth) {
> > > +		dev->tx_fifo_depth = tx_fifo_depth;
> > > +		dev->rx_fifo_depth = rx_fifo_depth;
> > > +	} else if (tx_fifo_depth) {
> > > +		dev->tx_fifo_depth = min_t(u32, dev->tx_fifo_depth,
> > > +				tx_fifo_depth);
> > > +		dev->rx_fifo_depth = min_t(u32, dev->rx_fifo_depth,
> > > +				rx_fifo_depth);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > So, let's clarify here:
> > Is it possible to have an IP without parameter block enabled? I mean to
> > read something arbitrary (or zeroes, or all-ones) from param1.
> 
> Yes and it is Intel IP. Haswell IIRC and it returned zeroes.

The "+ 1"  in the first set of tx_fifo_depth
makes the "else if" check unnecessary.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux