All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Markus Pargmann <mpa@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kernel@pengutronix.de,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core bugfix: Use normal enable for always_on regulators
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:46:15 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140219014615.GK2669@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140218214007.GE10590@pengutronix.de>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1096 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:40:07PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:14:20AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:

> > I don't understand this.  Why is this called _no_delay() and why don't
> > we want to delay when applying constraints?  We don't want to ever be in
> > a position where we think a supply is enabled but it has in fact not
> > finished ramping, and of course enable() may in fact be blocking anyway.

> I tried not to modify the current behaviour of the core driver for
> non-gpio regulators. Before this patch only ops->enable() was called
> which also didn't have a delay. So I seperated the non-delay enable
> function to have the same behaviour for normal regulators.

No, that's not good.  The fact that it wasn't applying delays is going
to be a bug - it should've been doing that.

> Also the constraints are applied when registering a new regulator. For
> "boot-on" we should not delay because this regulator is already on by
> definition. But I am not sure what to do with always-on regulators?

I'd just always apply a delay, it's simpler and more robust.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] regulator: core bugfix: Use normal enable for always_on regulators
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:46:15 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140219014615.GK2669@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140218214007.GE10590@pengutronix.de>

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:40:07PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:14:20AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:

> > I don't understand this.  Why is this called _no_delay() and why don't
> > we want to delay when applying constraints?  We don't want to ever be in
> > a position where we think a supply is enabled but it has in fact not
> > finished ramping, and of course enable() may in fact be blocking anyway.

> I tried not to modify the current behaviour of the core driver for
> non-gpio regulators. Before this patch only ops->enable() was called
> which also didn't have a delay. So I seperated the non-delay enable
> function to have the same behaviour for normal regulators.

No, that's not good.  The fact that it wasn't applying delays is going
to be a bug - it should've been doing that.

> Also the constraints are applied when registering a new regulator. For
> "boot-on" we should not delay because this regulator is already on by
> definition. But I am not sure what to do with always-on regulators?

I'd just always apply a delay, it's simpler and more robust.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140219/d68d5fd4/attachment.sig>

  reply	other threads:[~2014-02-19  1:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-02-16 19:00 [PATCH] regulator: core bugfix: Use normal enable for always_on regulators Markus Pargmann
2014-02-16 19:00 ` Markus Pargmann
2014-02-18  0:14 ` Mark Brown
2014-02-18  0:14   ` Mark Brown
2014-02-18 21:40   ` Markus Pargmann
2014-02-18 21:40     ` Markus Pargmann
2014-02-19  1:46     ` Mark Brown [this message]
2014-02-19  1:46       ` Mark Brown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140219014615.GK2669@sirena.org.uk \
    --to=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpa@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.