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

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2126 bytes --]

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] 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.

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 ?

-- 
balbi

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