From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/2] add support for pmic_arb v2 and correct framework Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:53:15 -0800 Message-ID: <20150212005315.GH11190@codeaurora.org> References: <1423522272-24472-1-git-send-email-gavidov@codeaurora.org> <54D93E0A.9000703@codeaurora.org> <20150211110542.4e6d7218@gavidov-lnx.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150211110542.4e6d7218@gavidov-lnx.qualcomm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Gilad Avidov Cc: sdharia@codeaurora.org, mlocke@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iivanov@mm-sol.com, galak@codeaurora.org, agross@codeaurora.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 02/11, Gilad Avidov wrote: > On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:08:58 -0800 > Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > On 02/09/15 14:51, Gilad Avidov wrote: > > > pmic_arb v2 has no support for spmi non-data commands and thus > > > returns -EOPNOTSUPP on .cmd callback. This causes a failure in > > > spmi_drv_probe() which sends a wakeup command to the slave before > > > probing its driver. This patchset removes the wakeup from > > > spmi_drv_probe() since the spmi spec stipulates that a slaves > > > default state is active and doesn't need a wakeup. > > > > The spec also seems to stipulate that SPMI masters shall support all > > SPMI command sequences. > > Regardless of the master's support, a wakeup call before prob is not > required. Yes that seems to match what the spec says. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project