> No, please read the code carefully.
> We can duplicate conditional, but it brings a bit of inconsistency to how the
> counters are printed.
Thanks for clarification, I am still confused as the original
code print the real mode based on dev->master_cfg, the new
code is printing mode based on frequency.
My understanding is the original code could fall back to a lower
speed when higher speed modes were not set successfully. For
example, high speed mode falls back to fast mode:
if ((dev->master_cfg & DW_IC_CON_SPEED_MASK) ==
DW_IC_CON_SPEED_HIGH) {
if ((comp_param1 & DW_IC_COMP_PARAM_1_SPEED_MODE_MASK)
!= DW_IC_COMP_PARAM_1_SPEED_MODE_HIGH) {
dev_err(dev->dev, "High Speed not supported!\n");
dev->master_cfg &= ~DW_IC_CON_SPEED_MASK;
dev->master_cfg |= DW_IC_CON_SPEED_FAST;
dev->hs_hcnt = 0;
dev->hs_lcnt = 0;
}
the original code was printing the mode based on the new
fallback dev->master_cfg but not the mode calculated from
frequency:
switch (dev->master_cfg & DW_IC_CON_SPEED_MASK) {
case DW_IC_CON_SPEED_STD:
mode_str = "Standard Mode";
break;
case DW_IC_CON_SPEED_HIGH:
mode_str = "High Speed Mode";
break;
default:
mode_str = "Fast Mode";
}
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > --
> > 2.8.1
>
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
