On 10/15, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote: > > > On Oct 15, 2015, at 1:43 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I have to take this back. I missed the part where some pmics are on > > slave id 2 or slave id 4, so this check isn't going to work. I've > > adjusted it to use sid % 2 instead and I'll resend these two patches, > > but I imagine to be more robust we're going to need to add a revid node > > to the DT under the SID that actually has it. Then we can search the > > child nodes for a revid compatible node and do the rev probing stuff. > > Ah, yes. We don’t use revision information for now. > I suppose we can just remove these reads until we need > this information? > True, we could just remove all the code and make it look for a revid node at some later time. But later would be soon because I'm working on patches to add the read/write/volatile regmap tables to this driver. I guess I'll just go all the way and do the revid node part. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
