On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 01:20:37PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > stat & BIT(1) is the same as BIT(1), so let's > simplify things a bit by removing "stat &" from > all omap_i2c_ack_stat() calls. This doesn't feel right, and the explanation is definitely wrong. "stat & BIT(1)" is not the same as "BIT(1)" _unless_ you're saying that stat always has BIT(1) already set. Can you guarantee that in this code? If so, how? What happens if you read the status register, and it has bit 1 clear. immediately after the read, the status register bit 1 becomes set, and then you write bit 1 set (because you've dropped the stat & BIT(1) from the code.) Is it not going to acknowledge that bit-1-set but because you haven't read it, you're going to miss that event? This feels like a buggy change to me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
