From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] spmi: remove wakeup command before slave probe Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:17:13 -0800 Message-ID: <54E4E539.3020408@codeaurora.org> References: <1423522272-24472-1-git-send-email-gavidov@codeaurora.org> <1423522272-24472-2-git-send-email-gavidov@codeaurora.org> <20150218153918.GB3485@kryptos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:58408 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751940AbbBRTRR (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:17:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20150218153918.GB3485@kryptos> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Josh Cartwright , 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 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 > > 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 -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project