On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 05:48:54PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> On 18-07-13 14:07, Mark Brown wrote:

> > This is fine - consumers shouldn't expect that a disable will cause
> > anything to actually get powered off, constraints or other consumers
> > might mean that the disable doesn't actually happen.  It's just the same
> > as a consumer with an always on flag.

> Okay, I understand that the behaviour should be like the always-on
> contrain. But now the behaviour of the core is like my v1 of
> "Re-Enable support to disable switch regulators". It's like a 'simulated
> off', which wasn't a good solution for you. The difference is, that the
> 'simulated off' is now made in the core.

Right, there's a difference between what the core (which does actually
explicitly turn things on and off) sees and what the consumers (which
only increment and decrement reference counts which may happen to result
in something being turned off immediately but also might not) see.