Implement i2c_master_multi_buffer_transmit_receive() (IDFGH-16889)

[0xFEEDC0DE64]

This PR adds a new method to the new i2c driver to first send multiple buffers, and then read a single buffer.

---

Note

Adds i2c_master_multi_buffer_transmit_receive() to perform multiple writes followed by a read, with sync/async support and public header docs.

• Driver (core):
  • Implement i2c_master_multi_buffer_transmit_receive() in components/esp_driver_i2c/i2c_master.c to build an I2C op sequence: RESTART → multiple WRITE buffers → RESTART → READ (ACK then NACK last byte) → STOP, with argument checks and sync/async dispatch.
• Public API:
  • Declare and document i2c_master_multi_buffer_transmit_receive() in components/esp_driver_i2c/include/driver/i2c_master.h.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 81900f4. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[github-actions]

Warnings

⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "Implement i2c_master_multi_buffer_transmit_receive()": summary looks empty type/action looks empty Please fix these commit messages - here are some basic tips: follow Conventional Commits style correct format of commit message should be: <type/action>(<scope/component>): <summary>, for example fix(esp32): Fixed startup timeout issue allowed types are: change,ci,docs,feat,fix,refactor,remove,revert,test sufficiently descriptive message summary should be between 20 to 72 characters and start with upper case letter avoid Jira references in commit messages (unavailable/irrelevant for our customers) TIP: Install pre-commit hooks and run this check when committing (uses the Conventional Precommit Linter).

👋 Hello 0xFEEDC0DE64, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

📘 Please review the project's Contributions Guide for key guidelines on code, documentation, testing, and more.

---

🖊️ Please also make sure you have read and signed the Contributor License Agreement for this project.

---

Click to see more instructions ...

This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...

We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests via this public GitHub repository.

This GitHub project is public mirror of our internal git repository

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved, we synchronize it into our internal git repository.
4. In the internal git repository we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
5. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.
5. On next sync from the internal git repository merged change will appear in this public GitHub repository.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 81900f4

[cursor]

This PR is being reviewed by Cursor Bugbot

Details

Your team is on the Bugbot Free tier. On this plan, Bugbot will review limited PRs each billing cycle for each member of your team.

To receive Bugbot reviews on all of your PRs, visit the Cursor dashboard to activate Pro and start your 14-day free trial.

[cursor]

Bug: Missing validation causes integer underflow when read_size is zero

The new function i2c_master_multi_buffer_transmit_receive() lacks validation for read_buffer and read_size, unlike the similar functions i2c_master_transmit_receive() and i2c_master_receive() which check (read_buffer != NULL) && (read_size > 0). When read_size is zero, the expression read_size - 1 causes unsigned integer underflow to SIZE_MAX, and read_buffer + read_size - 1 creates an out-of-bounds pointer.

Additional Locations (1)

• components/esp_driver_i2c/i2c_master.c#L1350-L1355

 

[0xFEEDC0DE64]

Dear AI, I copied the function basically from the one above. I have no interest in fixing this issue when it was already present (and accepted?) previously.