On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 06:31:07PM +0530, Shubhrajyoti Datta wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > If timeout error occurs in the i2c transfer then it was dumping warning
> > of call stack.
> >
> > Remove the warning dump as there is may be possibility that some slave
> > devices are busy and not responding the i2c communication.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > The patch is generated based on discussion happen between Stephena and
> > Wolfram on the patch:
> > i2c: add bcm2835 driver
> >
> > resending patch as Wolfram's email id has been changed.
> >
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
> > index ae2e027..36704e3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
> > @@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ static int tegra_i2c_xfer_msg(struct tegra_i2c_dev *i2c_dev,
> > ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&i2c_dev->msg_complete, TEGRA_I2C_TIMEOUT);
> > tegra_i2c_mask_irq(i2c_dev, int_mask);
> >
> > - if (WARN_ON(ret == 0)) {
> > + if (ret == 0) {
>
> I think WARN_ON has a unlikely.
>
> If you could do a profiling and have the unlikely.
>
> BTW thats not an objection to the patch though.
The thing is: Timeouts can be expected on an I2C bus. Devices can be
busy, that's fine. So, no need for a WARN. I'm even thinking of asking
to remove the dev_err here, or at least change it into dev_warn, but
haven't made up my mind yet.
Regards,
Wolfram
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
