Am 15.12.2012 18:16, schrieb Antti Palosaari:
> On 12/15/2012 06:25 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
>> Am 15.12.2012 14:46, schrieb Antti Palosaari:
>>> On 12/15/2012 03:01 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
>>>> Am 14.12.2012 18:03, schrieb Antti Palosaari:
>>>>> On 12/14/2012 06:28 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
>>>>>> - check i2c slave address range (only 7 bit addresses supported)
>>>>>> - do not pass USB specific error codes to userspace/i2c-subsystem
>>>>>> - unify the returned error codes and make them compliant with
>>>>>> the i2c subsystem spec
>>>>>> - check number of actually transferred bytes (via USB) everywehere
>>>>>> - fix/improve debug messages
>>>>>> - improve code comments
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -244,16 +294,20 @@ static int em28xx_i2c_xfer(struct i2c_adapter
>>>>>> *i2c_adap,
>>>>>> dprintk2(2, "%s %s addr=%x len=%d:",
>>>>>> (msgs[i].flags & I2C_M_RD) ? "read" : "write",
>>>>>> i == num - 1 ? "stop" : "nonstop", addr,
>>>>>> msgs[i].len);
>>>>>> + if (addr > 0xff) {
>>>>>> + dprintk2(2, " ERROR: 10 bit addresses not
>>>>>> supported\n");
>>>>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>> There is own flag for 10bit I2C address. Use it (and likely not
>>>>> compare at all addr validly like that). This kind of address
>>>>> validation check is quite unnecessary - and after all if it is wanted
>>>>> then correct place is somewhere in I2C routines.
>>>>
>>>> Well, to be 100% sure and strict, we should check both, the flag
>>>> and the
>>>> actual address.
>>>> We support 7 bit addresses only, no matter which i2c algo is used. So
>>>> doing the address check in each i2c routine seems to be unnecessary
>>>> code
>>>> duplication to me ?
>>>
>>> I will repeat me, I see it overkill to check address correctness. And
>>> as I said, that one is general validly could be done easily in I2C
>>> core - so why the hell you wish make it just only for em28xx ?
>>>
>>> I am quite sure if that kind of address validness are saw important
>>> they are already implemented by I2C core.
>>>
>>> Make patch for I2C which does that address validation against client
>>> 10BIT flag and sent it to the mailing list for discussion.
>>
>> The I2C core doesn't know about the capabilities of the adapter.
>> Hence it doesn't know if ten bit addresses will work (the same as with
>> the message size constraints).
>> All it does ist to check the client for I2C_CLIENT_TEN && addr > 0x7f
>> once, when it is instanciated with a call to i2c_new_device().
>> But we don't use this function in em28xx and the same applies to many
>> other drivers as well.
>> Apart from that, the client address and flags can change anytime later
>> (e.g. when probing devices).
>
> yes, it does not need to know if adapter supports 10 bit or not, or
> how many bytes adapter could send at once. It is up to adapter to
> check those.
master_xfer() fcn _is_ the adpater.
You are confusing i2c adapter and client driver code here.
>
> But it could check if client tries to send using invalid address
> (client says it is 7BIT, but address is 10BIT), just situation you are
> adding to em28xx adapter.
>
> If you are worried flags and address could change during operation,
> I2C core could check it too.
Feel free to send patches.
> Every driver I have seen are using I2C routines to send messages, and
> if there is check lets say eg. inside i2c_transfer() then it benefits
> all the others than em28xx.
I agree.
> That is NOT em28xx *only* issue, it is common for all of our drivers.
Sure.
> As it is common, adding check for each driver sounds wrong. General
> check should be done in general level, and hw specific issues are for
> driver.
Although I wouldn't call it wrong, I agree.
Jean might shed some light on this.
Regards,
Frank
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
