Hi, On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 07:33:39PM +0530, Datta, Shubhrajyoti wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Shubhrajyoti <[1]shubhrajyoti@xxxxxx> > wrote: > > 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] > [2]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: > > [3]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, > > Earlier mail got corrupted resending this is much worse. What mail client are you using ? Maybe there are some tips on Documentation/email-clients.txt -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
