| Message ID | 20200127102303.44133-1-colin.king@canonical.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | 878508aed4776a5b08dcc000d33a01a42e3fd07d |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [next,V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue | expand |
On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote: > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove > the extraneous tab. > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > --- > V2: fix type in commit message > --- > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c) > xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET); > if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { > dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n"); > - return -ETIMEDOUT; > + return -ETIMEDOUT; > } > } > > As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch subject") Thanks, Michal
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote: > > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > > > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove > > the extraneous tab. > > > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > --- > > V2: fix type in commit message > > --- > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c) > > xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET); > > if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { > > dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n"); > > - return -ETIMEDOUT; > > + return -ETIMEDOUT; > > } > > } > > > > > > As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch > subject") Please stop this silliness. This is not a bug fix and does not need a Fixes tag. Johan
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:46 PM Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote: > > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove > the extraneous tab. > Reviewed-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > --- > V2: fix type in commit message > --- > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c) > xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET); > if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { > dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n"); > - return -ETIMEDOUT; > + return -ETIMEDOUT; > } > } > > -- > 2.24.0 >
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote: > > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > > > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove > > the extraneous tab. > > > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > --- > > V2: fix type in commit message > > --- > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c) > > xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET); > > if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { > > dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n"); > > - return -ETIMEDOUT; > > + return -ETIMEDOUT; > > } > > } > > > > > > As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch > subject") > It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup. regards, dan carpenter
On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote: >>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>> >>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove >>> the extraneous tab. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>> --- >>> V2: fix type in commit message >>> --- >>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c) >>> xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET); >>> if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { >>> dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n"); >>> - return -ETIMEDOUT; >>> + return -ETIMEDOUT; >>> } >>> } >>> >>> >> >> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch >> subject") >> > > It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup. I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too. > > regards, > dan carpenter >
On 27. 01. 20 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote: > On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote: >>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>>> >>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove >>>> the extraneous tab. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>>> --- >>>> V2: fix type in commit message >>>> --- >>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c) >>>> xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET); >>>> if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { >>>> dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n"); >>>> - return -ETIMEDOUT; >>>> + return -ETIMEDOUT; >>>> } >>>> } >>>> >>>> >>> >>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch >>> subject") >>> >> >> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup. > > I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too. ok. Up2you. Thanks, Michal
On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote: > On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote: >>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>>> >>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove >>>> the extraneous tab. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>>> --- >>>> V2: fix type in commit message >>>> --- >>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c) >>>> xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET); >>>> if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { >>>> dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n"); >>>> - return -ETIMEDOUT; >>>> + return -ETIMEDOUT; >>>> } >>>> } >>>> >>>> >>> >>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch >>> subject") >>> >> >> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup. > > I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too. Very funny. I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked. However, this ridicule is unfair. The problem here is that Colin sent a v2, ignoring my suggestion to add a fixes-tag without mentioning that my suggestion was in fact ignored (and why). That is a sure way to invite someone else to point out what seemed like an omission. Which happened. And then this farce ensued. So, Colin, take a long look in the mirror and direct your sarcasm in whatever direction you feel appropriate. I also maintain that noone writes code like this on purpose (at least not without some ulterior motive). This is the kind of stuff that cause problems and wastes time later when someone mis-reads the code. You three people, with all those commits, should know that. My point is that this is more than just cleanup and is indeed fixing a bug. Claiming otherwise is just silly. The compiler is not the only consumer of the code. Cheers, Peter
On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote: >> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote: >>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>>>> >>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove >>>>> the extraneous tab. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> V2: fix type in commit message >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +- >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c) >>>>> xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET); >>>>> if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { >>>>> dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n"); >>>>> - return -ETIMEDOUT; >>>>> + return -ETIMEDOUT; >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch >>>> subject") >>>> >>> >>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup. >> >> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too. > > Very funny. Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1. > > I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together > have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked. > > However, this ridicule is unfair. > > The problem here is that Colin sent a v2, ignoring my suggestion to add > a fixes-tag without mentioning that my suggestion was in fact ignored > (and why). That is a sure way to invite someone else to point out what > seemed like an omission. Which happened. And then this farce ensued. I can only apologize for not adding the fixes tag because I honestly didn't see the fixes tag request until after the follow-ups. I didn't indent to rile anyone on this and I didn't want to offend anyone by purposely ignoring their requires. My bad #2. > > So, Colin, take a long look in the mirror and direct your sarcasm in > whatever direction you feel appropriate. I did. And I was wrong. My bad #3. > > I also maintain that noone writes code like this on purpose (at least > not without some ulterior motive). This is the kind of stuff that cause > problems and wastes time later when someone mis-reads the code. You three > people, with all those commits, should know that. My point is that this > is more than just cleanup and is indeed fixing a bug. Claiming otherwise > is just silly. The compiler is not the only consumer of the code. Whatever is needed to get fixes into the kernel. Some say it's a bug, others don't. As long as it's fixed then I'm happy. If in the process I did the wrong thing I can only apologize profoundly and profusely. Colin > > Cheers, > Peter >
On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 23:10 +0000, Colin Ian King wrote: > On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote: > > On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote: > > > On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > > > > On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote: > > > > > > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove > > > > > > the extraneous tab. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > V2: fix type in commit message > > > > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > > > > > > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c > > > > > > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c) > > > > > > xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET); > > > > > > if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { > > > > > > dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n"); > > > > > > - return -ETIMEDOUT; > > > > > > + return -ETIMEDOUT; > > > > > > } > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch > > > > > subject") > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup. > > > > > > I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too. > > > > Very funny. > > Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1. > > > I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together > > have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked. > > > > However, this ridicule is unfair. It's not unfair. In _no_ sense is a whitespace only change a valid reason to use a "Fixes:" tag. A whitespace only coding-style issue is _not_ a bug. From submitting-patches: If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using ``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary.
On 2020-01-29 00:10, Colin Ian King wrote: > On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote: >>> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote: >>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove >>>>>> the extraneous tab. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> V2: fix type in commit message >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c) >>>>>> xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET); >>>>>> if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { >>>>>> dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n"); >>>>>> - return -ETIMEDOUT; >>>>>> + return -ETIMEDOUT; >>>>>> } >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch >>>>> subject") >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup. >>> >>> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too. >> >> Very funny. > > Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1. Apology accepted, no hard feelings. Don't worry about it, and sorry on my part for a possible overreaction! Cheers, Peter
On 2020-01-29 00:48, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 23:10 +0000, Colin Ian King wrote: >> On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote: >>>> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote: >>>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove >>>>>>> the extraneous tab. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> V2: fix type in commit message >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c >>>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c) >>>>>>> xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET); >>>>>>> if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { >>>>>>> dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n"); >>>>>>> - return -ETIMEDOUT; >>>>>>> + return -ETIMEDOUT; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch >>>>>> subject") >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup. >>>> >>>> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too. >>> >>> Very funny. >> >> Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1. >> >>> I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together >>> have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked. >>> >>> However, this ridicule is unfair. And the 4th heavy-weight steps in, and the grand total is now well past 10000 commits. > It's not unfair. Are you saying that it's fair??? > In _no_ sense is a whitespace only change a valid reason > to use a "Fixes:" tag. > > A whitespace only coding-style issue is _not_ a bug. Right. That's one opinion. And it seems that many long time contributors agree that this is the case. So it must be the only acceptable opinion. Or? In my book coding-style issues is about taste, i.e. if you use spaces or tabs to indent, and if and when you add a new-line before {. Etc. This fix is about directly misleading code that noone writes on purpose. Clearly a bug in my book, and not some meager "style" issue. > From submitting-patches: > > If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using > ``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of > the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary. You need to read that carefully. Do you see that "e.g." part? This quote states *one* example of how you can find a bug. It's not some exhaustive list and thus "proves" nothing what-so-ever. Besides, reading the git biscet manual reveals that "In fact, git bisect can be used to find the commit that changed any property of your project" So, if we are being ridiculous, thanks for the support! Below is the proof that I found a really horrible *bisectable* bug! Looks like a fixes-tag was warranted after all!!!1! On a more serious note I challenge you to find anything in Documentation/ that tells me, without ambiguity, that the patch in question is *not* fixing a bug, because your quote is clearly not it. I'm *only* saying that it is not always so damn easy to categorize issues, and that a mis-step does not warrant ridicule. Cheers, Peter $ cat finder.sh #! /bin/sh if grep 'return -ETIMEDOUT;' drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c; then exit 1 fi $ git bisect start $ git bisect bad $ git bisect good v5.5-rc1 Bisecting: 814 revisions left to test after this (roughly 10 steps) [0dd1e3773ae8afc4bfdce782bdeffc10f9cae6ec] pipe: fix empty pipe check in pipe_write() $ git bisect run ./finder.sh running ./finder.sh Bisecting: 406 revisions left to test after this (roughly 9 steps) [ca78fdeb00fa656f09afee977750e85da929d259] Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2020-01-03' of git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm running ./finder.sh Bisecting: 210 revisions left to test after this (roughly 8 steps) [a5f48c7878d2365f6ff7008e9317abbc16f68847] Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net running ./finder.sh Bisecting: 102 revisions left to test after this (roughly 7 steps) [7da37cd0520e71707a1190022377941b9cec3b0b] Merge tag 'staging-5.5-rc6' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging running ./finder.sh Bisecting: 52 revisions left to test after this (roughly 6 steps) [040a3c33623ba4bd11588ab0820281b854a3ffaf] Merge tag 'iommu-fixes-v5.5-rc5' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/joro/iommu running ./finder.sh Bisecting: 26 revisions left to test after this (roughly 5 steps) [b3ec946975737b949137fbb1a2db9e7cc5b9ae82] i2c: tegra: Check DMA completion status in addition to left time running ./finder.sh Bisecting: 13 revisions left to test after this (roughly 4 steps) [e8d51e962936bf4527f41db318d53a80006f2bf7] docs: i2c: use the new API in 'writing-clients' running ./finder.sh Bisecting: 6 revisions left to test after this (roughly 3 steps) [4a2d5f663dab6614772d8e28ca190b127ba46d9d] i2c: Enable compile testing for more drivers running ./finder.sh return -ETIMEDOUT; Bisecting: 3 revisions left to test after this (roughly 2 steps) [40b2ec1251c370bc5557568e259d4058c651d405] i2c: highlander: Use proper printk format for size_t running ./finder.sh Bisecting: 1 revision left to test after this (roughly 1 step) [c9d059681b846f5d0a280950ea4dc58495b9b7a9] i2c: xiic: defer the probe if clock is not found running ./finder.sh return -ETIMEDOUT; Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps) [b4c119dbc300c7a6ee2da70d5c7ba14747b35142] i2c: xiic: Add timeout to the rx fifo wait loop running ./finder.sh return -ETIMEDOUT; b4c119dbc300c7a6ee2da70d5c7ba14747b35142 is the first bad commit commit b4c119dbc300c7a6ee2da70d5c7ba14747b35142 Author: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@xilinx.com> Date: Thu Jan 9 17:07:58 2020 +0530 i2c: xiic: Add timeout to the rx fifo wait loop Add timeout to the rx fifo empty wait loop. Also check for the return value for xiic_reinit and pass it to xiic_start_xfer. Signed-off-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@xilinx.com> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> :040000 040000 ca301fc2df019bb2acd07bddabe4afa492ad8f65 22d719ef351bf4897b465d10630e30e7c5cf665f M drivers bisect run success
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c) xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET); if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n"); - return -ETIMEDOUT; + return -ETIMEDOUT; } }