[Letux-kernel] [PATCH 0/5] w1: omap: fix some bugs (most were introduced in v5.6 but some are older)

H. Nikolaus Schaller hns at goldelico.com
Sat May 9 18:29:51 CEST 2020


> Am 08.05.2020 um 20:59 schrieb Andreas Kemnade <andreas at kemnade.info>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I remember review comments which complain about beginning a sentence
> in subject line and continuing it in another line.
> That is the case in various commits in this series.

Yes, I also remember them...

I'll update this.

> 
> Regards,
> Andreas
> 
> On Fri,  8 May 2020 16:28:15 +0200
> "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns at goldelico.com> wrote:
> 
>> * problems with resetting interrupt flags too early
>> * print error if they get mixed up again
>> * wrong return value if battery is removed and no hdq response
>> * some dev_dbg are missing \n
>> 
>> 
>> H. Nikolaus Schaller (5):
>>  w1: omap-hdq: cleanup to add missing newline for some dev_dbg
>>  w1: omap-hdq: fix interrupt handling which did show spurious timeouts
>>  w1: omap-hdq: fix case of removed battery
>>  w1: omap-hdq: fix return value to be -1 if there is a timeout
>>  w1: omap-hdq: print dev_err if irq flags are not cleared

What do you think about squashing?

>> w1: omap-hdq: cleanup to add missing newline for some dev_dbg

should be applied back to the oldest stable kernels, i.e. is a separate
patch.

>>  w1: omap-hdq: fix interrupt handling which did show spurious timeouts
>>  w1: omap-hdq: fix case of removed battery
>>  w1: omap-hdq: fix return value to be -1 if there is a timeout

are the real changes. The second one is really a fix for the first one.

The third solves a separate issue and is not related to interrupt handling
and timeouts. So it should IMHO be a separate patch.

>> w1: omap-hdq: print dev_err if irq flags are not cleared

is nice for debugging, but I wasn't able to trigger it again. So it
is questionable if we need the if condition. Or does the compiler
optimize it away?

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus



More information about the Letux-kernel mailing list