Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] i2c: mv64xxx: add support for FSM based recovery

[Chris Packham]

On 13/10/23 20:11, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> mmmhhh... still a bit skeptical about waiting 100 times 10us in
>> atomic.
> Has it been discussed already why the non-atomic version of
> read_poll_timeout is not enough?
>
For mv64xxx i2c_recovery() is called from two places. One would be fine 
with read_poll_timeout() but the other is in an interrupt handler so 
needs the atomic version (or something else that doesn't schedule).