> same thread." [1] Thus I'd suggest the next fix for the problem:
>
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> @@ -72,7 +72,10 @@ static int dw_reg_write(void *context, unsigned int reg, unsigned int val)
> {
> struct dw_i2c_dev *dev = context;
>
> - writel_relaxed(val, dev->base + reg);
> + if (reg == DW_IC_INTR_MASK)
> + writel(val, dev->base + reg);
> + else
> + writel_relaxed(val, dev->base + reg);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> (and similar changes for dw_reg_write_swab() and dw_reg_write_word().)
>
> What do you think?
To me, this looks reasonable and much more what I would have expected as
a result (from a high level point of view). Let's hope it works. I am
optimistic, though...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
