On 11/24/2014 08:13 PM, Mike Looijmans wrote: > On 24-11-2014 14:15, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >> Hi Uwe, >> On 11/23/2014 07:04 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:03:08PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>>> @@ -664,6 +759,7 @@ static int davinci_i2c_probe(struct >>>> platform_device *pdev) >>>> if (!of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, >>>> "clock-frequency", >>>> &prop)) >>>> dev->pdata->bus_freq = prop / 1000; >>>> + dev->pdata->has_pfunc = true; >>> I don't understand this. Why does this ICPFUNC recovery work if the bus >>> is probed by oftree, but doesn't if not? >> I've mentioned this in commit message: >> Allow platforms to indicate the presence of the ICPFUNC registers >> with a has_pfunc >> platform data flag and enable this mode for platforms which supports >> DT (da850 and >> Keystone 2 are two SoCs which support DT now and they also support >> ICPFUNC registers). >> >> I'll add proper comment here. > > Just thinking: What happens if you try to use the ICPFUNC registers on > platforms that don't support it? If the answer is "nothing bad", then > you might as well assume that if the platform doesn't specify its own > GPIOs, you can always try using the ICPFUNC registers to shake the I2C > bus. Better to try and fail than to never try at all... > I think the right answer is !"nothing bad". My intention was to enable this feature by default, because current DT-compatible SoCs support it and the possibility that older SoCs will migrate to DT is low. But now I think that the right way will be to add proper compatible strings and use them to detect if ICPFUNC registers are supported or not. [...] regards, -grygorii -- 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
