On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 4:09 PM Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> [190912 19:00]: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:29 PM André Roth <neolynx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From: Thara Gopinath <thara@xxxxxx> > > > > > > Voltage control on TWL can be done using VMODE/I2C1/I2C_SR. > > > Since almost all platforms use I2C_SR on omap3, omap3_twl_init by > > > default expects that OMAP's I2C_SR is plugged in to TWL's I2C > > > and calls omap3_twl_set_sr_bit. On platforms where I2C_SR is not connected, > > > the board files are expected to call omap3_twl_set_sr_bit(false) to > > > ensure that I2C_SR path is not set for voltage control and prevent > > > the default behavior of omap3_twl_init. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara@xxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Shweta Gulati <shweta.gulati@xxxxxx> > > > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> > > > > Tony, > > > > Is there a status update on this series? It's been several months, > > and I haven't seen any feedback on it, nor does it appear to be in any > > of your branches that I can see. > > Well it was tagged RFC.. Does something need updating > with it? I didn't notice the RTC until you pointed out the 0/3 file showed the RFC. Andre - since you have sign-off by various TI people and Tony seems satisfied, would you be will to re-base and push the patch series without the RFC? I think some of the work that H Nikolaus Schaller is doing will benefit from this. Thank you, adam > > At least the first two patches looked OK to me. > > Regards, > > Tony
