Re: [PATCH] OMAP4: I2C: Enable the wakeup in I2C_WE

[Felipe Balbi <balbi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3667 bytes --]

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 07:33:39PM +0530, Datta, Shubhrajyoti wrote:
>    On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Shubhrajyoti <[1]shubhrajyoti-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
>    wrote:
> 
>      On Friday 29 July 2011 06:07 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> 
>        Hi,
> 
>        On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 01:28:12PM +0100, "Andy Green (林安廸)" wrote:
> 
>          On 07/29/2011 01:07 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> 
>          Hi -
> 
>            -                       omap_i2c_write_reg(dev, OMAP_I2C_WE_REG,
>            dev->westate);
>            +                       if (dev->rev<   OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_3530_4430)
>            +                               omap_i2c_write_reg(dev,
>            OMAP_I2C_WE_REG,
>            +                                                              
>            dev->westate);
>            Andy, can you clarify why you added the revision check which
>            didn't
>            exist before ?
> 
>            [1]
>            [2]http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux-omap-pm.git;a=commitdiff;h=a3a7acbcc3df4e9ecc12aa1fc435534d74ebbdf4
> 
>          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:
> 
>          [3]http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/54940
> 
>          @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ static int omap_i2c_init(struct omap_i2c_dev
>          *dev)
>                                  * REVISIT: Some wkup sources might not be
>          needed.
>                                  */
>                                 dev->westate = 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);
>                         }
> 
>          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.
> 
>          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 ?
> 
>      I wasn't aware of the conflict resolution part. Actually came across
>      this
>      piece of code as per the discussion on the reset implementation patch
>      will update
>      the changelogs.
>      How about,
> 
>    Earlier mail got corrupted resending

this is much worse. What mail client are you using ? Maybe there are
some tips on Documentation/email-clients.txt

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]