On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:05:12 +0200 Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfal...@nokia.com> wrote:
> > What about introducing this simplification in a separate followup patch, > > quoting your rationale in its changelog? I can try to prepare one if you > > agree. > > I think it is OK to have a followup patch addressing these. > Just mention in a comment, that you are writing the cached value back to the > register, which does not have these status flags set, thus clearing the > reason > in McBSP. > > Jarkko: What do you think? > I agree, follow-up patch sound cleaner and safer than modifying the patch 4. -- Jarkko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
