On 07/07/2015 05:13 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:48:52PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:37:49PM +0200, Jan Lübbe wrote: >>> On Mi, 2014-11-26 at 19:05 +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>>> On 11/26/2014 06:04 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 03:59:53PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>>>>> Having a board where the I2C bus locks up occasionally made it clear >>>>>> that the bus recovery in the i2c-davinci driver will only work on >>>>>> some boards, because on regular boards, this will only toggle GPIO >>>>>> lines that aren't muxed to the actual pins. >>>>>> >>>>>> The I2C controller on SoCs like da850 (and da830), Keystone 2 has the >>>>>> built-in capability to bit-bang its lines by using the ICPFUNC registers >>>>>> of the i2c controller. >>>>>> Implement the suggested procedure by toggling SCL and checking SDA using >>>>>> the ICPFUNC registers of the I2C controller when present. Allow platforms >>>>>> to indicate the presence of the ICPFUNC registers with a has_pfunc platform >>>>>> data flag and add optional DT property "ti,has-pfunc" to indicate >>>>>> the same in DT. >>>>> On what does it depend if this pfunc stuff works or not? Only the SoC, >>>>> or also on some board specific properties? >>>> >>>> SoC / set of SoCs. Also, similar feature is supported by OMAP and AM335x/AM437x SoCs >>>> using I2C_SYSTEST register. >>>> >>>>> Given the former using the >>>>> compatible string to detect its availability would be better. (In this >>>>> case also sorry, didn't consider this case when requesting the property >>>>> in the last round.) >>> >>> I only stumbled across this after it was merged, with the additional >> I also wonder how it came to the Reviewed-by tag for me. The last thing >> that I said about the patch was "On what does it depend if this pfunc >> stuff works or not? Only the SoC, or also on some board specific >> properties?" (see above) and "the patch looks ok". IMHO this hardly >> justifies to add the Reviewed-by tag for the next round. :-( > > That needs to be discussed with Grygorii. I can't verify the correctness > of tags for every patch, although I do try to keep an eye on it... > Regarding "the patch looks ok" - sincerely sorry! This is not the first time I've treated "looks good.." as Reviewed-by and I got no complaints before :( Will take it into account. Regarding technical comments: OK. Seems I missed smth. or understood wrongly. So, I'll say what's people usually saying here - Sorry for that :( But, to be honest I don't feel guilty, because: - v4 of these patches was merged finally - that v4 missed >2 kernel releases - you were added in "TO:" for all versions of these patches. -- regards, -grygorii -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
