On 3/10/22 16:22, Jan Dabros wrote:
Simplify code by adding an extra static function for sending I2C
requests and verifying results.
Signed-off-by: Jan Dabros <jsd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-amdpsp.c | 44 ++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
Do I remember correctly was this suggested by Andy? I.e. to give kudos
to him if that was the case:
Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-amdpsp.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-amdpsp.c
index c64e459afb5c..cc758792f150 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-amdpsp.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-amdpsp.c
@@ -229,6 +229,26 @@ static int psp_send_i2c_req(enum psp_i2c_req_type i2c_req_type)
return ret;
}
+static int psp_send_i2c_req_check_err(enum psp_i2c_req_type request)
+{
+ int status;
+
+ status = psp_send_i2c_req(request);
+ if (status) {
+ if (status == -ETIMEDOUT)
+ dev_err(psp_i2c_dev, "Timed out waiting for PSP to %s I2C bus\n",
+ (request == PSP_I2C_REQ_ACQUIRE) ?
+ "release" : "acquire");
+ else
+ dev_err(psp_i2c_dev, "PSP communication error\n");
+
+ dev_err(psp_i2c_dev, "Assume i2c bus is for exclusive host usage\n");
+ psp_i2c_mbox_fail = true;
+ }
+
Does it make sense to have these inside the psp_send_i2c_req() and get
rid of this new middle function? I mean psp_send_i2c_req() is called now
only from here so can it do these common error prints and set
"psp_i2c_mbox_fail = true"?
Jarkko
