[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <hbnkcqjgykfzivqvjnr5ixmp57am43mxslfnpxhro27kzd2pyt@q35uhgkxn5cv>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 01:39:39 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>, Vladimir Kondratiev <vladimir.kondratiev@...ileye.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik.bayouk@...ileye.com>,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [SPAM] [PATCH v2 04/11] i2c: nomadik: simplify IRQ masking logic
Hi Theo,
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 07:10:52PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> IRQ_MASK and I2C_CLEAR_ALL_INTS are redundant. One masks the top three
if I2C_CLEAR_ALL_INTS is redundant why don't you remove it?
> bits off as reserved, the other one masks the reserved IRQs inside the
> u32. Get rid of IRQ_MASK and only use the most restrictive mask.
Why is IRQ_MASK redundant? What happens if you write in the
reserved bits?
Can you please explain a bit better the change you did?
Thanks,
Andi
> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists