On Friday 29 July 2011 06:07 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 01:28:12PM +0100, "Andy Green (林安廸)" wrote:
On 07/29/2011 01:07 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
Hi -
- omap_i2c_write_reg(dev, OMAP_I2C_WE_REG, dev->westate);
+ if (dev->rev< OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_3530_4430)
+ omap_i2c_write_reg(dev, OMAP_I2C_WE_REG,
+ dev->westate);
Andy, can you clarify why you added the revision check which didn't
exist before ?
[1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux-omap-pm.git;a=commitdiff;h=a3a7acbcc3df4e9ecc12aa1fc435534d74ebbdf4
At the time I wrote the patches back in March, the code there was
different: there was a pre-extant test avoiding that line on 4430,
and the patch is simply converting it to the new scheme. You can see
it here:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/54940
@@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ static int omap_i2c_init(struct omap_i2c_dev *dev)
* REVISIT: Some wkup sources might not be needed.
*/
dev->westate = OMAP_I2C_WE_ALL;
- if (dev->rev< OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_4430)
+ if (dev->rev< OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_3530_4430)
omap_i2c_write_reg(dev, OMAP_I2C_WE_REG,
dev->westate);
}
I guess since March and before this got committed for 3.1, someone
got a patch in first removing the test, so when my patchset was
uplevelled for commit against 3.1-rc this conflict was dealt with by
re-introducing the test.
Long story short, it's there from me as a mechanical 1:1 renaming
action as part of the fix that 3530 and 4430 (different) IPs return
the same rev number. Despite how it now looks I didn't add it, so if
Shubhrajyoti has reasons to think it should be gone again I have
nothing against that at all.
yeah, looks like a bad conflict resolution. Shubhrajyoti, care to respin
the patch and update commit log stating that it is fixing a bad conflict
resolution or something ?
I wasn't aware of the conflict resolution part. Actually came across this
piece of code as per the discussion on the reset implementation patch
will update
the changelogs.
How about,
From: Shubhrajyoti D<shubhrajyoti@xxxxxx>
Currently for OMAP4 the I2C_WE is not programmed.
This patch enables the programming for OMAP4.
Fixes a conflict resolution of Andy's patches.
Reported-by: Santosh Shilimkar<santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Shubhrajyoti D<shubhrajyoti@xxxxxx>
---
TODO:
Currently all the wakeup sources are enabled.
There is scope of optimising the same. Will revisit it.
Rebased on Kevin's wip/i2c branch
Tested on OMAP4430.
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c | 5 ++---
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c
index d05efe7..18cc0af 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c
@@ -313,9 +313,8 @@ static int omap_i2c_init(struct omap_i2c_dev *dev)
* REVISIT: Some wakeup sources might not be needed.
*/
dev->westate = OMAP_I2C_WE_ALL;
- if (dev->rev< OMAP_I2C_REV_ON_3530_4430)
- omap_i2c_write_reg(dev, OMAP_I2C_WE_REG,
- dev->westate);
+ omap_i2c_write_reg(dev, OMAP_I2C_WE_REG,
+ dev->westate);
}
omap_i2c_write_reg(dev, OMAP_I2C_CON_REG, 0);
-- 1.7.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
