From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?IkFuZHkgR3JlZW4gKOael+WuieW7uCki?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP4: I2C: Enable the wakeup in I2C_WE Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:28:12 +0100 Message-ID: <4E32A75C.5060400@warmcat.com> References: <1311940122-10681-1-git-send-email-shubhrajyoti@ti.com> <20110729120711.GL31013@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110729120711.GL31013-UiBtZHVXSwEVvW8u9ZQWYwjfymiNCTlR@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: balbi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org Cc: 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 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] 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: 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. -Andy