From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Nikula Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] i2c: designware: Move common probe code into i2c_dw_probe() Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:10:26 +0300 Message-ID: <56279CD2.80308@linux.intel.com> References: <20151010075725.GF1619@katana> <1444658135-9281-1-git-send-email-jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com> <20151020163216.GA1014@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:36414 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750733AbbJUOLR (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:11:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20151020163216.GA1014@katana> Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi On 10/20/2015 07:32 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > There was a merge conflict with a bugfix from i2c/for-current. I think > it is okay, but you may want to double check my i2c/for-next. > Looks like pm_runtime_disable() got dropped from your 36d48fb5766a ("i2c: designware-platdrv: enable RuntimePM before registering to the core") while handling the merge conflict. I'll send a fix. > What about this irq-clearing-in-probe thingie on top of this series? :) > I'll have a look at it. What's not entirely clear to me would it be no-op or not. HW is actually disabled after i2c_dw_init() which is called before requesting the interrupt but is not clear to me from the spec does HW clear interrupts while it goes idle. So as a result I'd expect either a explicit interrupt clearing patch (to be more robust against potential unmasking changes) or a comment in __i2c_dw_enable() :-) -- Jarkko