On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:57:34AM +0530, Neha Malcom Francis wrote: > EEPROM detection logic in ti_i2c_eeprom_get() involves figuring out > whether addressing is 1-byte or 2-byte. There are currently different > behaviours seen across boards as documented in commit bf6376642fe8 > ("board: ti: common: board_detect: Fix EEPROM read quirk"). Adding to > the list, we see that there are 2-byte EEPROMs that read properly > with 1-byte addressing with no offset. > > For ti_i2c_eeprom_am6_get where eeprom parse operation is dynamic, the > earlier commit d2ab2a2bafd5 ("board: ti: common: board_detect: Fix > EEPROM read quirk for AM6 style data") tried to resolve this by running > ti_i2c_eeprom_get() twice. However this commit along with its former > commit fails on J7 platforms where EEPROM successfully return back the > header on 1-byte addressing and continues to do so until an offset is > introduced. So the second read incorrectly determines the EEPROM as > 1-byte addressing. > > A more generic solution is introduced here to solve > this issue: 1-byte read without offset and 1-byte read with offset. If > both passes, it follows 1-byte addressing else we proceed with 2-byte > addressing check. > > Tested on J721E, J7200, DRA7xx, AM64x > > Signed-off-by: Neha Malcom Francis <n-fran...@ti.com> > Fixes: d2ab2a2bafd5 (board: ti: common: board_detect: Fix EEPROM read quirk > for AM6 style data) > Fixes: bf6376642fe8 (board: ti: common: board_detect: Fix EEPROM read quirk)
There's not a great choice here between take this now for v2023.01 (when lots of people are going to be busy and not catch a new possible corner case) or put this in -next and have it be in v2023.04 (as places might pick v2023.01 to base on for a while). But, I'm leaning towards putting this in -next since it should be easy to cherry-pick this as needed. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature