Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koe...@pengutronix.de> writes:

> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 02:06:43PM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>> Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koe...@pengutronix.de> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:43:03AM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>> >> From: Esben Haabendal <e...@deif.com>
>> >> 
>> >> Always update the stopped state when busy status have been checked.
>> >> This is identical to what was done before, with the exception of error
>> >> handling.
>> >> Without this change, some errors cause the stopped state to be left in
>> >> incorrect state in i2c_imx_stop(), i2c_imx_dma_read(), i2c_imx_read() and
>> >> i2c_imx_xfer().
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: Esben Haabendal <e...@deif.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c | 12 ++++++------
>> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> >> 
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c
>> >> index d86f152176a4..1db8e6790afc 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c
>> >> @@ -421,10 +421,14 @@ static int i2c_imx_bus_busy(struct imx_i2c_struct 
>> >> *i2c_imx, int for_busy)
>> >>                   return -EAGAIN;
>> >>           }
>> >>  
>> >> -         if (for_busy && (temp & I2SR_IBB))
>> >> +         if (for_busy && (temp & I2SR_IBB)) {
>> >> +                 i2c_imx->stopped = 0;
>> >>                   break;
>> >> -         if (!for_busy && !(temp & I2SR_IBB))
>> >> +         }
>> >> +         if (!for_busy && !(temp & I2SR_IBB)) {
>> >> +                 i2c_imx->stopped = 1;
>> >>                   break;
>> >> +         }
>> >
>> > Would it make sense to assign to ->stopped independent of for_busy?
>> 
>> What do you mean?
>> 
>> Assigning to ->stopped on each check for I2SR_IBB in loop, independent
>> of the for_busy argument?  I don't think so.  The additional assignments
>> would be to the same value as it is set to already.
>
> Currently you have:
>
>       if (for_busy && (temp & I2SR_IBB)) {
>               i2c_imx->stopped = 0;
>               break;
>       }
>
>       if (!for_busy && !(temp & I2SR_IBB)) {
>               i2c_imx->stopped = 1;
>               break;
>       }
>
> The semantic of this is the same (apart from always updating .stopped)
> but is imho easier:
>
>       i2c_imx->stopped = !(temp & I2SR_IBB);
>
>       if (for_busy != i2c_imx->stopped)
>               break;

Yes, that should work also.
Shorter, but IMHO a bit more convoluted to read.
Let me know if I should send a new version with this change.

/Esben

Reply via email to