On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:34:54PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 01/13/2017 11:26 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > It also feels quite hand wavy since the punit could do whatever at > > any time AFAIK. Eg. if there's some thermal event or something the > > punit might kick into action. So trying to protect this from the OS > > side might not be able to avoid these problems entirely. It feels like > > there really should be some kind of shared hardware/firmware mutex > > with the punit to arbitrate access to the i2c bus. > > > There is an HW semaphore for I2C access. It is implemented in > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-baytrail.c and another set from Hans > is adding support for Cherrytrail into it. Then why do we need anything else? -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC -- 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
