Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:23:25 -0700
From: Gilad Avidov <gavidov@codeaurora.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Josh Cartwright <joshc@eso.teric.us>, 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
Message-ID: <20150219122325.429afe8f@gavidov-lnx.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<54E4E539.3020408@codeaurora.org>
Organization: Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1674
Lines: 47

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:17:13 -0800
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:

> 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?
> 

As Stephen suggested, I'll drop the bug part.

Thank you for the reviews,
Gilad

> With that done,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/