From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: Josh Cartwright <joshc@eso.teric.us>,
Gilad Avidov <gavidov@codeaurora.org>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] spmi: remove wakeup command before slave probe
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:17:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54E4E539.3020408@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150218153918.GB3485@kryptos>
On 02/18/15 07:39, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Gilad Avidov wrote:
>> According to spmi spec a slave powers up into startup state and then
>> transitions into active state. Thus, the wakeup command is not required
>> before calling the slave's probe. The wakeup command is only needed for
>> slaves that are in sleep state after receiving the sleep command.
>>
>> This is a bug since spmi master controllers, such as spmi-pmic-arb,
>> which have no support for wakeup command return an error on that
>> command and thus fail before reaching a slave driver probe.
> If masters are required by the spec to support all commands as Stephen
> mentions, then I'd argue this is not a bug in the core code at all, but
> in the spmi-pmic-arb driver. But, unfortunately, having lost access to
> the spec, I'll defer.
>
> Regardless, I think this is useful as an optimization, just with dubious
> justification.
>
> Therefore,
>
> Acked-by: Josh Cartwright <joshc@eso.teric.us>
>
>
Agreed, it's mostly an optimization and aligns the code more with the
spec. How about we drop the "This is a bug" part?
With that done,
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-18 19:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-09 22:51 [PATCH V3 0/2] add support for pmic_arb v2 and correct framework Gilad Avidov
2015-02-09 22:51 ` [PATCH V3 1/2] spmi: remove wakeup command before slave probe Gilad Avidov
2015-02-18 15:39 ` Josh Cartwright
2015-02-18 19:17 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2015-02-19 19:23 ` Gilad Avidov
2015-02-09 22:51 ` [PATCH V3 2/2] spmi: pmic_arb: add support for hw version 2 Gilad Avidov
2015-02-18 15:34 ` Josh Cartwright
2015-02-19 17:29 ` Gilad Avidov
2015-02-09 23:08 ` [PATCH V3 0/2] add support for pmic_arb v2 and correct framework Stephen Boyd
2015-02-11 18:05 ` Gilad Avidov
2015-02-12 0:53 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-13 19:50 ` Gilad Avidov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54E4E539.3020408@codeaurora.org \
--to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=agross@codeaurora.org \
--cc=galak@codeaurora.org \
--cc=gavidov@codeaurora.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=iivanov@mm-sol.com \
--cc=joshc@eso.teric.us \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mlocke@codeaurora.org \
--cc=sdharia@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.