2017-10-26 15:54 GMT+02:00 Leif Lindholm <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 03:19:36PM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote: >> Hi Leif, >> >> 2017-10-26 14:51 GMT+02:00 Leif Lindholm <[email protected]>: >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 03:19:28AM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote: >> >> From: David Greeson <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Although the I2C transaction routines were prepared to >> >> return their status, they were never used. This could >> >> cause bus lock-up e.g. in case of failing to send a >> >> slave address, the data transfer was attempted to be >> >> continued anyway. >> >> >> >> This patch fixes faulty behavior by checking transaction >> >> status and stopping it immediately, once the fail >> >> is detected. >> >> >> >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 >> >> Signed-off-by: David Greeson <[email protected]> >> >> [Style adjustment and cleanup] >> >> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas <[email protected]> >> >> --- >> >> Platform/Marvell/Drivers/I2c/MvI2cDxe/MvI2cDxe.c | 34 >> >> +++++++++++++++++--- >> >> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/Platform/Marvell/Drivers/I2c/MvI2cDxe/MvI2cDxe.c >> >> b/Platform/Marvell/Drivers/I2c/MvI2cDxe/MvI2cDxe.c >> >> index d85ee0b..7faf1f7 100755 >> >> --- a/Platform/Marvell/Drivers/I2c/MvI2cDxe/MvI2cDxe.c >> >> +++ b/Platform/Marvell/Drivers/I2c/MvI2cDxe/MvI2cDxe.c >> >> @@ -565,6 +565,7 @@ MvI2cStartRequest ( >> >> UINTN Transmitted; >> >> I2C_MASTER_CONTEXT *I2cMasterContext = I2C_SC_FROM_MASTER(This); >> >> EFI_I2C_OPERATION *Operation; >> >> + EFI_STATUS Status = EFI_SUCCESS; >> >> >> >> ASSERT (RequestPacket != NULL); >> >> ASSERT (I2cMasterContext != NULL); >> >> @@ -574,35 +575,58 @@ MvI2cStartRequest ( >> >> ReadMode = Operation->Flags & I2C_FLAG_READ; >> >> >> >> if (Count == 0) { >> >> - MvI2cStart ( I2cMasterContext, >> >> + Status = MvI2cStart (I2cMasterContext, >> >> (SlaveAddress << 1) | ReadMode, >> >> I2C_TRANSFER_TIMEOUT >> > >> > Much as I appreciate seeing this form of the code, since it simplifies >> > seeing the functional changes, this does cause those lines left >> > unchanges to no longer conform to coding style. >> > Can you please adjust throughout for a v2? >> > >> >> No problem. I of course saw style violations, but I gave up on them >> for "no mix of functional improvements and style cleanups" contraint >> :) I will correct the modified function calls. > > Clarification: this is and has always been _unrelated_ style cleanups. > Any statement that is actually being modified should be conformant > afterwards. >
Ok, thanks for clarification. Marcin _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
