On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 15:08:00 -0800
S?ren Brinkmann [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 09:28PM +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:

quoted

On Fri,  7 Mar 2014 11:13:27 -0800
Soren Brinkmann [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <redacted>
---
 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