On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 15:08:00 -0800 Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 09:28PM +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 11:13:27 -0800 > > Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c | 6 +----- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > > > index a4bd6242e72d..a39c2d290902 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > > > @@ -1082,11 +1082,7 @@ static void xuartps_console_write(struct console *co, const char *s, > > > > > > xuartps_writel(ctrl, XUARTPS_CR_OFFSET); > > > > > > - /* restore interrupt state, it seems like there may be a h/w bug > > > - * in that the interrupt enable register should not need to be > > > - * written based on the data sheet > > > - */ > > > - xuartps_writel(~imr, XUARTPS_IDR_OFFSET); > > > + /* restore interrupt state */ > > > > It would be appropriate for the changelog at least to explain why the > > note about the data sheet differing is going away ! > > I don't know why anybody ever thought things are broken. IMHO, the > comment does not make any sense. Why would it not be required to write > the enable register when you enable interrupts? > I think someone read the data sheet wrong. The comment reads very much like John Linn added it after trying to debug a problem in real hardware. As such I think it warrants a bit more calling out than a silent removal. That way if someone does find there is a hardware bug (or some software race we don't understand) they will be able to find the regression easily in the git log. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
