On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 09:54:17PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>After we disabled interrupts, there might still be an active one
>running. Sync before clearing the pointer to the slave device.
>
>Fixes: c31d0a00021d ("i2c: emev2: add slave support")
>Reported-by: Krzysztof Adamski <[email protected]>
>Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]>
>---
>
>Not tested on hardware yet. If someone has the board set up, testing if
>standard I2C communication works would be nice. That would mean irq
>setup did not regress. The actual race is more complicated to trigger.
>If noone has the board, I will fetch it from my repository. It is packed
>away currently.I don't see how this could influence the standard I2C communication at all. If change in em_i2c_unreg_slave() is excluded, all that was changed is moving irq number from local variable to the em_i2c_device struct which is also not used outside of the em_i2c_unreg_slave() appart from logging :) Then, if we consider em_i2c_unreg_slave() I also don't see how this could regres as no locks are being held in this function so calling synchronize_irq() should be safe. So from my point of view: Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Adamski <[email protected]> Krzysztof
