Hi Jarkko, On 9/28/22 07:49, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > + Hans > > I forgot to Cc you yesterday even especially had a question for you :-( Yes I can test this on BYT and CHT hw where one of the i2c-designware busses is shared with the PUNIT. I have added this patch to me personal tree which I regularly test on these kinda devices. I will let you know if I hit any issues, if you don't hear anything from me then you can assume I have not hit any issues :) You also mention being especially interested on testing on hw where the interrupt line is shared with other devices. I don't think the i2c-designware interrupts are ever shared with other hw on the BYT/CHT devices I have. Regards, Hans > Patch here and my comment to Andy below. > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/patch/20220927135644.1656369-1-jarkko.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > On 9/27/22 17:35, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 04:56:44PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: >>> #define STATUS_IDLE 0x0 >> >> A side note: I think the clearer is to use STATUS_MASK and use >> '&= ~STATUS_MASK' instead of '= STATUS_IDLE' in the affected pieces >> of the code. >> >>> -#define STATUS_WRITE_IN_PROGRESS 0x1 >>> -#define STATUS_READ_IN_PROGRESS 0x2 >>> +#define STATUS_ACTIVE 0x1 >>> +#define STATUS_WRITE_IN_PROGRESS 0x2 >>> +#define STATUS_READ_IN_PROGRESS 0x4 >> >> Can we at the same time replace them with BIT()? >> >> ... >> >> Otherwise looks good to me, >> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Good points. I'll add these to follow up patches. > > Jarkko >
