Hi Hans,
[...]
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-viai2c-common.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-viai2c-common.c
> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
> #define VIAI2C_TIMEOUT (msecs_to_jiffies(1000))
> #define VIAI2C_STRETCHING_TIMEOUT 200
>
> -static int viai2c_wait_bus_ready(struct viai2c *i2c)
> +int viai2c_wait_bus_ready(struct viai2c *i2c)
no, please, choose the rigth prototype at the beginning, don't
double change things in the same series.
> {
> unsigned long timeout;
> void __iomem *base = i2c->base;
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ static int viai2c_wait_bus_ready(struct viai2c *i2c)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int viai2c_wait_status(struct viai2c *i2c)
> +int viai2c_wait_status(struct viai2c *i2c)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> unsigned long time_left;
> @@ -71,6 +71,9 @@ static irqreturn_t viai2c_isr(int irq, void *data)
>
> /* save the status and write-clear it */
> i2c->cmd_status = readw(i2c->base + VIAI2C_REG_ISR);
> + if (!i2c->cmd_status)
> + return IRQ_NONE;
> +
is this change related to this patch? can you put this at the
beginning?
Andi
