On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:25:01AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:38:29 +0100,
> Hans de Goede wrote:
> >
> > index a8e74ca..a4ac473 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h
> > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@
> > * @pm_qos: pm_qos_request used while holding a hardware lock on the bus
> > * @acquire_lock: function to acquire a hardware lock on the bus
> > * @release_lock: function to release a hardware lock on the bus
> > - * @pm_runtime_disabled: true if pm runtime is disabled
> > + * @pm_disabled: true if power-management should be disabled for this i2c-bus
> > *
> > * HCNT and LCNT parameters can be used if the platform knows more accurate
> > * values than the one computed based only on the input clock frequency.
> > @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ struct dw_i2c_dev {
> > struct pm_qos_request pm_qos;
> > int (*acquire_lock)(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev);
> > void (*release_lock)(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev);
> > - bool pm_runtime_disabled;
> > + bool pm_disabled;
> > bool dynamic_tar_update_enabled;
>
> I couldn't find this dynamic_tar_update_enabled field in your previous
> patchset. What am I missing?
It got reverted with 12688dc21f71f4 ("Revert "i2c: designware: detect
when dynamic tar update is possible"") around 4.10-rc7 time.
I also wondered that Hans didn't get a merge conflict somewhere.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
