From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753072AbbJMN0q (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:26:46 -0400 Received: from eusmtp01.atmel.com ([212.144.249.242]:28822 "EHLO eusmtp01.atmel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751930AbbJMN0o (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:26:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:26:43 +0200 From: "ludovic.desroches@atmel.com" To: Peter Rosin CC: Cyrille Pitchen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Wolfram Sang , Christian Gmainer , , "ludovic.desroches@atmel.com" Subject: Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing Message-ID: <20151013132643.GD11227@odux.rfo.atmel.com> Mail-Followup-To: Peter Rosin , Cyrille Pitchen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Wolfram Sang , Christian Gmainer , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <560F0DB1.2020101@lysator.liu.se> <561238A9.1060406@lysator.liu.se> <20151005150032.GA12137@odux.rfo.atmel.com> <561292AC.8060408@lysator.liu.se> <561BCE33.2050904@lysator.liu.se> <561BDC32.2080401@atmel.com> <561CDF2F.3090608@lysator.liu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <561CDF2F.3090608@lysator.liu.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Peter, On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:38:39PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2015-10-12 18:13, Cyrille Pitchen wrote: > > Le 12/10/2015 17:13, Peter Rosin a écrit : > >> On 2015-10-05 17:09, Peter Rosin wrote: [...] > Anyway, I find it unnecessarily hard to grasp exactly what you mean > (wasteful policy you are apparently suffering from where it is OK to > publish a patch written in English, but apparently a big no-no to > send a diff until it passes some internal review???). I interpreted > your "patch" in English as: > > at91_twi_read_next_byte(dev); > - else if (irqstatus & AT_TWI_TXRDY) > + else if ((irqstatus & (AT91_TWI_TXCOMP | AT91_TWI_TXRDY | AT91_TWI_NACK)) == AT91_TWI_TXRDY) > at91_twi_write_next_byte(dev); We don't have such kind of policy. I simply discussed about your bug with Cyrille and he managed to fix it. Since there are many combinations (IP version, PIO/dma, hdmac/xdmac), I wanted to test it on other platforms that the one used by Cyrille and add my signed-off-by before sending it. If nothing goes wrong (one platform has not been tested yet), the patch will be sent this afternoon. Cyrille answered in English in order to not create confusion with a patch which could not fit all combinations. Regards Ludovic