On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Mon, 30 May 2016 22:07:55 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > The interrupt handling code makes it look like several status values
> > > may be merged together before being processed, while this will never
> > > happen. Change from bit-wise OR to simple assignment to make it more
> > > obvious and avoid misunderstanding.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Daniel, was there any reason for this bit-wise OR, which I may be
> > > missing?
> >
> > The only thing I can think of is that I didn't want to assume that we
> > would always clear priv->status before another interrupt arrived.
>
> Well my question is quite clear: can this actually happen? I can't see
> how.
I have no idea. You'd have to ask Intel, I guess.
>
>
> > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > --- linux-4.5.orig/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c 2016-05-24 11:04:33.169026906 +0200
> > > +++ linux-4.5/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c 2016-05-24 11:05:40.564642488 +0200
> > > @@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ static irqreturn_t i801_isr(int irq, voi
> > > status &= SMBHSTSTS_INTR | STATUS_ERROR_FLAGS;
> > > if (status) {
> > > outb_p(status, SMBHSTSTS(priv));
> > > - priv->status |= status;
> > > + priv->status = status;
> > > wake_up(&priv->waitq);
> > > }
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
> SUSE L3 Support
--
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
