Hi, On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 12:01:05PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 02:54:32PM +0530, Shubhrajyoti Datta wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 02:04:56PM +0530, Shubhrajyoti wrote: > > > > >> @@ -1155,7 +1187,7 @@ omap_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > >> > > > > >> dev->fifo_size = (dev->fifo_size / 2); > > > > >> > > > > >> - if (dev->rev < OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_3630_4430) > > > > >> + if (dev->rev < OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_3630) > > > > >> dev->b_hw = 1; /* Enable hardware fixes */ > > > > > looks like this was applicable to 4430 too, what happened ? > > > > No actually this can be deleted completely once the > > > > start -> transaction -> stop sequence recommendation is followed. > > > > > > yes, but we're not there just yet and this patch is changing the > > > behavior of the driver > > > > > > No , earlier we were truncating the register for omap4 so > > OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_3630_4430 was there if we read both hi and lo for > > omap4 then we donot find 3630 and 4430 value to be similar. > > > > In this case the behavior is same as earlier also it enabled this for > > lower than 3630 and the same holds good even now. > > > > So in essence, Earlier OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_3630_4430 is named to > > OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_3630 and omap4 rev will have a 32bit value. > > it's not same behavior because before dev->b_hw was set for omap4430, > but now it won't be. This is the difference in behavior which I'm > pointing out. what I said is nonsense, since b_hw was set for anything older than 3630, so current code is no different. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
