> On 5 Sep 2019, at 18:15, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> + if (eeprom->read_only)
>> + return 0;
>
> What about:
>
> if (!eeprom->read_only) {
> spin_lock(&eeprom->buffer_lock);
> eeprom->buffer[eeprom->buffer_idx++ & eeprom->address_mask] = *val;
> spin_unlock(&eeprom->buffer_lock);
> }
>
> We can still keep only one exit point from the function this way.
Yes, that is better, I will fix tomorrow.
>
>> { "slave-24c02", I2C_SLAVE_DEVICE_MAGIC(2048 / 8, 0) },
>> + { "slave-24c02", I2C_SLAVE_DEVICE_MAGIC(2048 / 8, I2C_SLAVE_FLAG_RO) },
>
> "ro" missing. You haven't tested this entry ;)
>
Guilty! I discovered when I was about to send the patch that I’ve missed that eeprom, so I added it there. But I discovered my error when I backported it to our system:-)
Ba
