| Message ID | 20171123194157.25367-1-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Quoting Ville Syrjala (2017-11-23 19:41:55) > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > We're supposed to examine msgs[i] and msgs[i+1] to see if they > form a pair suitable for an indexed transfer. But in reality > we're examining msgs[0] and msgs[1]. Fix this. > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > Fixes: 56f9eac05489 ("drm/i915/intel_i2c: use INDEX cycles for i2c read transactions") > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c > index eb5827110d8f..165375cbef2f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c > @@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ do_gmbus_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num) > > for (; i < num; i += inc) { > inc = 1; > - if (gmbus_is_index_read(msgs, i, num)) { > + if (gmbus_is_index_read(&msgs[i], i, num)) { i is passed to gmbus_is_index_read() and used as an index into msgs. So this should be accounted for right? -Chris
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Ville Syrjala (2017-11-23 19:41:55) > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > > > We're supposed to examine msgs[i] and msgs[i+1] to see if they > > form a pair suitable for an indexed transfer. But in reality > > we're examining msgs[0] and msgs[1]. Fix this. > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org> > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > > Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > > Fixes: 56f9eac05489 ("drm/i915/intel_i2c: use INDEX cycles for i2c read transactions") > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c > > index eb5827110d8f..165375cbef2f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c > > @@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ do_gmbus_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num) > > > > for (; i < num; i += inc) { > > inc = 1; > > - if (gmbus_is_index_read(msgs, i, num)) { > > + if (gmbus_is_index_read(&msgs[i], i, num)) { > > i is passed to gmbus_is_index_read() and used as an index into msgs. So > this should be accounted for right? Doh. Yep, this patch is nonsense.
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 02:55:28PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Ville Syrjala (2017-11-23 19:41:55) > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > We're supposed to examine msgs[i] and msgs[i+1] to see if they > > > form a pair suitable for an indexed transfer. But in reality > > > we're examining msgs[0] and msgs[1]. Fix this. > > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > > Cc: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org> > > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > > > Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > > > Fixes: 56f9eac05489 ("drm/i915/intel_i2c: use INDEX cycles for i2c read transactions") > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c > > > index eb5827110d8f..165375cbef2f 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c > > > @@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ do_gmbus_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num) > > > > > > for (; i < num; i += inc) { > > > inc = 1; > > > - if (gmbus_is_index_read(msgs, i, num)) { > > > + if (gmbus_is_index_read(&msgs[i], i, num)) { > > > > i is passed to gmbus_is_index_read() and used as an index into msgs. So > > this should be accounted for right? > > Doh. Yep, this patch is nonsense. The two other patches pushed to dinq. Thanks catching my mistake with this one.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c index eb5827110d8f..165375cbef2f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c @@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ do_gmbus_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num) for (; i < num; i += inc) { inc = 1; - if (gmbus_is_index_read(msgs, i, num)) { + if (gmbus_is_index_read(&msgs[i], i, num)) { ret = gmbus_xfer_index_read(dev_priv, &msgs[i]); inc = 2; /* an index read is two msgs */ } else if (msgs[i].flags & I2C_M_RD) {