From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Balbi Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP4: I2C: Enable the wakeup in I2C_WE Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:37:17 +0300 Message-ID: <20110729123716.GN31013@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> References: <1311940122-10681-1-git-send-email-shubhrajyoti@ti.com> <20110729120711.GL31013@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <4E32A75C.5060400@warmcat.com> Reply-To: balbi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eGLW8NzjjVmDHwQh" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E32A75C.5060400-/Zus8d0mwwtBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: =?utf-8?B?IkFuZHkgR3JlZW4gKOael+WuieW7uCki?= Cc: balbi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org, Shubhrajyoti D , linux-omap-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, santosh.shilimkar-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org --eGLW8NzjjVmDHwQh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 01:28:12PM +0100, "Andy Green (=E6=9E=97=E5=AE=89= =E5=BB=B8)" wrote: > On 07/29/2011 01:07 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: >=20 > Hi - >=20 > >- omap_i2c_write_reg(dev, OMAP_I2C_WE_REG, dev->we= state); > >+ if (dev->rev< OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_3530_4430) > >+ omap_i2c_write_reg(dev, OMAP_I2C_WE_REG, > >+ dev->wes= tate); >=20 > >Andy, can you clarify why you added the revision check which didn't > >exist before ? > > > >[1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=3Dlinux/kernel/git/khilman/linux-omap-pm.gi= t;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=3Da3a7acbcc3df4e9ecc12aa1fc435534d74ebbdf4 > > >=20 > At the time I wrote the patches back in March, the code there was > different: there was a pre-extant test avoiding that line on 4430, > and the patch is simply converting it to the new scheme. You can see > it here: >=20 > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/54940 >=20 > @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ static int omap_i2c_init(struct omap_i2c_dev *dev) > * REVISIT: Some wkup sources might not be needed. > */ > dev->westate =3D OMAP_I2C_WE_ALL; > - if (dev->rev < OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_4430) > + if (dev->rev < OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_3530_4430) > omap_i2c_write_reg(dev, OMAP_I2C_WE_REG, > dev->westate); > } >=20 > I guess since March and before this got committed for 3.1, someone > got a patch in first removing the test, so when my patchset was > uplevelled for commit against 3.1-rc this conflict was dealt with by > re-introducing the test. >=20 > Long story short, it's there from me as a mechanical 1:1 renaming > action as part of the fix that 3530 and 4430 (different) IPs return > the same rev number. Despite how it now looks I didn't add it, so if > Shubhrajyoti has reasons to think it should be gone again I have > nothing against that at all. yeah, looks like a bad conflict resolution. Shubhrajyoti, care to respin the patch and update commit log stating that it is fixing a bad conflict resolution or something ? --=20 balbi --eGLW8NzjjVmDHwQh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOMql8AAoJEAv8Txj19kN1asAH/17I6yVoZV6x/mG4TXt7C5l8 3kMjs+njEGKDFovHJGi3Y6z/dw+3rEsyHCM1FWMdVVgjcKysoWotboneMiv8mRrU PbIixqQDDH0g54zoperlGnQWjvZ1Czp4YkrUFsBUwh5kkVoxmdGirzIq+HO3H+8D jpJEPwIm78OF3ncpfgjwD5PGv/liRtfmplJPV6KyNAAihZh88Wtnyi+X+OhDV/jX LmuZhScE6zvJoFKrcJT1z5tpMzoktVX1riaKx5kuNqMXZn8tpJtlI50yxb2jcL63 72HIeaMB+Ibn6cTMDkacc+pHRA9jH2xfV0tCV62G9YyKAxtFSpoPxBqQsODYeQw= =A2O5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eGLW8NzjjVmDHwQh--