Hi Andy, On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 02:20:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Stefan Lengfeld > <contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Like the PM subsystem routine pm_runtime_irq_safe() and flag 'irq_safe' > > No, it seems unlike as in PM. PM has one crucial detail which is done > together with enabling IRQ safety. > > > add a similar function i2c_adapter_irq_safe() to the I2C core. A driver > > should be able to announce whether his transfer implementations are safe > > to be called in IRQ disabled or atomic contexts, also called polling > > mode or sleep free operation. Ah, ok. `i2c_adapter_irq_safe()` is a bad idea. Thanks for the feedback. Then I vote for extending the 'struct i2c_algorithm' with an extra callback 'master_xfer_irqless'. The idea was already proposed here. This approach has the same information value than a flag 'irq_safe' and is even a bit cleaner, since it's more a compile time thing than a runtime setting. Kind regards, Stefan
