From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752181AbaBSBqm (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:46:42 -0500 Received: from cassiel.sirena.org.uk ([80.68.93.111]:38230 "EHLO cassiel.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751260AbaBSBqk (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:46:40 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:46:15 +0900 From: Mark Brown To: Markus Pargmann Cc: Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kernel@pengutronix.de, stable@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20140219014615.GK2669@sirena.org.uk> References: <1392577256-20475-1-git-send-email-mpa@pengutronix.de> <20140218001420.GF2669@sirena.org.uk> <20140218214007.GE10590@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2gg7fA5kVn3CgPY0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140218214007.GE10590@pengutronix.de> X-Cookie: Don't read everything you believe. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 106.188.103.38 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core bugfix: Use normal enable for always_on regulators X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on cassiel.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --2gg7fA5kVn3CgPY0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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. --2gg7fA5kVn3CgPY0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTBAzkAAoJELSic+t+oim93f0P/jsvjI3BJckhg1DQ3k8zwwE3 cOksyY6an5fwm2HcDkueQvBo/A976SzLpTlLGNugFKUDNsROGGM8VjgEDUlx8rMR TZqkCuenvX2odT5z37HmxUeBGF4i6i7vfQwSQq2wBSe8vQ1h1+1LN1CEf9HlFseB MyEevZ7QS3pPbrM8CgPMiQcdGgKANOpWD41mJjE4TCFXdgSuAO/T1UaPha3h5pYZ PpFSFwZm/4V2irnG+ziYxb4eKJ2x21YjYFlXlcP4LXmRo04Qw1+4oqdgdUXvefTn Cvk6K3amiU+4GC6Y8HtPoDpfHHXsFFM4Pn8lP2mGxZ0ASrlVuLLKpuw95WM9i92F obv0uBJ6qwEOEqgjN9sVbNAAuzMLvhtKCjpHi76ezB+8B2RqweQDPAILjm3QyoSq okoNfDRiWSv+MoPJ8M744ohJMRZZ+NW5rIsJi5KgwsrDpP0DLREV+qfmrsNUR1Nh OgAj60BVc+VXUJuCLm+M4NDiSlfNyYoB2L32LVzxSIjy5blDB39wOzTJg3A+ZGOW pJ+EjrSR2cDtj+oFUYUQKs3qzVet54c1+nLCzpM3ewXfdeFJsxk/E0a8nsMLodnu 8iHahDMJyDLfDhl6fsAGbqL2KZYEMANVCZmU0Spjwx2LCe1SDp6eoQC8MIifOaba 1PVPJZ0qW9HIwyEdTj1M =F43P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2gg7fA5kVn3CgPY0-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:46:15 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] regulator: core bugfix: Use normal enable for always_on regulators In-Reply-To: <20140218214007.GE10590@pengutronix.de> References: <1392577256-20475-1-git-send-email-mpa@pengutronix.de> <20140218001420.GF2669@sirena.org.uk> <20140218214007.GE10590@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20140219014615.GK2669@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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: