On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Stephen Warren [off-list ref] wrote:

On 08/27/2013 11:01 AM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
...
cell 0 - address type (0: master, 1: unique ID, 2: group ID, ...)

I think it would make sense to have the master id as a property of the
bus, as you could consider this to indicate different buses and then
usid, gsid and base being part of the reg.

cell 1 - address value

I did hack up Josh patchset to read a reg touple of <usid, base>
instead of just usid. I stored the second value in the spmi_device
struct for easy access, but maybe it should be done like on
codeaurora; in a resource?
I believe this looks nice, but as I haven't read the mipi spec I
wonder, will there be a case where you don't have an offset/base?
Should it just be made optional?

Can we make the address <usid, [base]> and have the code populate a
resource based on a reg-names property? That way it would be possible
to extend it to support gsid in case we want to (would require
reg-names though).


With the hack to Josh's patchset I quickly ported qpnp-revision and
qpnp-vibrator, and it seems to work quite nicely.

Regards,
Bjorn