Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1422774 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] i2c: i801: add support of Host Notify

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] i2c: i801: add support of Host Notify Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> - 2016-06-15 10:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] i2c: i801: add support of Host Notify Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-06-16 08:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] i2c: i801: add support of Host Notify Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> - 2016-06-16 15:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] i2c: i801: add support of Host Notify Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-06-16 16:40 +0200

#1422774 — Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] i2c: i801: add support of Host Notify

On Jun 09 2016 or thereabouts, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> The i801 chip can handle the Host Notify feature since ICH 3 as mentioned
> in http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/datasheet/82801ca-io-controller-hub-3-datasheet.pdf
> 
> Enable the functionality unconditionally and propagate the alert
> on each notification.
> 
> With a T440s and a Synaptics touchpad that implements Host Notify, the
> payload data is always 0x0000, so I am not sure if the device actually
> sends the payload or if there is a problem regarding the implementation.
> 
> Tested-by: Andrew Duggan <aduggan@synaptics.com>
> Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
> ---
> changes in v2:
> - removed the description of the Slave functionality support in the chip table
>   (the table shows what is supported, not what the hardware is capable of)
> - use i2c-smbus to forward the notification
> - remove the fifo, and directly retrieve the address and payload in the worker
> - do not check for Host Notification is the feature is not enabled
> - use inw_p() to read the payload instead of 2 inb_p() calls
> - add /* fall-through */ comment
> - unconditionally enable Host Notify if the hardware supports it (can be
>   disabled by the user)
>  
> no changes in v3
> 
> changes in v4:
> - make use of the new API -> no more worker spawning here
> - solved a race between the access of the Host Notify registers and the actual
>   I2C transfers.
> 
> changes in v5:
> - added SKL Host Notify support
> 
> changes in v6:
> - select I2C_SMBUS in Kconfig to prevent an undefined reference when I2C_I801
>   is set to 'Y' while I2C_SMBUS is set to 'M'
> 
> no changes in v7
> 
> changes in v8:
> - reapplied after http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/632768/ and merged the
>   conflict (minor conflict in the struct i801_priv).
> - removed the .resume hook as upstream changed suspend/resume hooks and there
>   is no need in the end to re-enable host notify on resume (tested on Lenovo
>   t440 and t450).

Actually, this hook seemed to be required on the Lenovo T440 (Haswell)
but not on the T450 (Broadwell) laptop I have now here.

Wolfram, I can resend the whole series or a follow-up patch to re-enable
after resume Host Notify. How do you prefer I deal with that?

Cheers,
Benjamin

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1423699

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> > - removed the .resume hook as upstream changed suspend/resume hooks and there
> >   is no need in the end to re-enable host notify on resume (tested on Lenovo
> >   t440 and t450).
> 
> Actually, this hook seemed to be required on the Lenovo T440 (Haswell)
> but not on the T450 (Broadwell) laptop I have now here.
> 
> Wolfram, I can resend the whole series or a follow-up patch to re-enable
> after resume Host Notify. How do you prefer I deal with that?

That depends a little how we want to handle patch 4. I am going to apply
patches 1+2 today to my tree. Then you can just resend patch 3 which I
hope will get some review soon, but I will pick it up for 4.8 later
nonetheless. If it is not causing too much dependency hassle, I'd prefer
that patch 4 goes via Dmitry's input tree.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1424027

On Jun 16 2016 or thereabouts, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > - removed the .resume hook as upstream changed suspend/resume hooks and there
> > >   is no need in the end to re-enable host notify on resume (tested on Lenovo
> > >   t440 and t450).
> > 
> > Actually, this hook seemed to be required on the Lenovo T440 (Haswell)
> > but not on the T450 (Broadwell) laptop I have now here.
> > 
> > Wolfram, I can resend the whole series or a follow-up patch to re-enable
> > after resume Host Notify. How do you prefer I deal with that?
> 
> That depends a little how we want to handle patch 4. I am going to apply
> patches 1+2 today to my tree. Then you can just resend patch 3 which I
> hope will get some review soon, but I will pick it up for 4.8 later
> nonetheless. If it is not causing too much dependency hassle, I'd prefer
> that patch 4 goes via Dmitry's input tree.
> 

Works for me. Thanks for picking up the core changes. As soon as this
gets merged, the input part (patch 4), which is independent of patch 3
(i2c-i801) can be carried over through the input tree. So as long as
you don't need to have a new feature without users for a short period
of time, that's fine by me :)

Cheers,
Benjamin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1424133

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> (i2c-i801) can be carried over through the input tree. So as long as
> you don't need to have a new feature without users for a short period
> of time, that's fine by me :)

That's fine. I have extremly high trust that the user of the feature
will be added soon ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web