From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751941AbbCKTFL (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:05:11 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:33800 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750755AbbCKTFI (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:05:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:05:01 -0600 From: Gilad Avidov To: "Ivan T. Ivanov" Cc: sdharia@codeaurora.org, mlocke@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, galak@codeaurora.org, agross@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] spmi: pmic_arb: add support for hw version 2 Message-ID: <20150311130501.241caf24@gavidov-lnx.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <1424775668.2340.15.camel@mm-sol.com> References: <1424386453-18092-1-git-send-email-gavidov@codeaurora.org> <1424386453-18092-3-git-send-email-gavidov@codeaurora.org> <1424775668.2340.15.camel@mm-sol.com> Organization: Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Ivan, On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:01:08 +0200 "Ivan T. Ivanov" wrote: > > Hi Gilad, > > One more comment :-). > > On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 15:54 -0700, Gilad Avidov wrote: > > > > > -static int pmic_arb_wait_for_done(struct spmi_controller *ctrl) > +static int pmic_arb_wait_for_done(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, > + void __iomem *base, > u8 sid, u16 addr) { > struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev = > spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl); u32 status = 0; > u32 timeout = PMIC_ARB_TIMEOUT_US; > - u32 offset = PMIC_ARB_STATUS(dev->channel); > + u32 offset = dev->ver_ops->offset(dev, sid, addr) + > PMIC_ARB_STATUS; > > > while (timeout--) { > status = pmic_arb_base_read(dev, offset); > > I see that downstream driver is using read or write base address > based on operation for which we are waiting (read_cmd/write_cmd). > > Should this be reflected here? Good catch, it should (although it still works fine). I'll fix that. Gilad. > > Ivan. >