From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] soc: qcom: smsm: Handle probe deferral
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 20:47:18 -0700
Message-ID: <20170405034718.GJ70446@Bjorns-MacBook-Pro-2.local>
References: <20170315114357.14446-1-j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>
 <20170328061829.GI70446@Bjorns-MacBook-Pro-2.local>
 <20170404023807.4ivn4pt4zv2bq4di@latitude>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170404023807.4ivn4pt4zv2bq4di@latitude>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Jonathan Neusch?fer <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-soc@vger.kernel.org, Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>, David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org

On Mon 03 Apr 19:38 PDT 2017, Jonathan Neusch?fer wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:18:29PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
[..]
> > However, for us to reach this point in smsm_probe() the above
> > qcom_smem_get() must have returned successfully, i.e. we have SMEM in
> > place so there's no need to handle this case specifically.
> 
> I came to the same conclusion but wasn't sure. I'll drop this part from
> my patch.
> 
> I'll send a v2 of this series, although after applying your suggestions,
> I can't claim much originality anymore.
> 

Don't worry about it. Looking forward to version 2.

Regards,
Bjorn