From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Clément Péron" <peron.clem@gmail.com>,
"Marek Szyprowski" <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
"Viresh Kumar" <vireshk@kernel.org>, "Nishanth Menon" <nm@ti.com>,
"Stephen Boyd" <sboyd@kernel.org>,
"open list:ALLWINNER CPUFREQ DRIVER" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
"Steven Price" <steven.price@arm.com>
Subject: Re: Question about OPP regulator for Panfrost Devfreq
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 11:18:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200513101805.GA4803@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200513091922.qnpjx4kw2m3jv2ry@vireshk-i7>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 937 bytes --]
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 02:49:22PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> @Mark: Regarding enabling/disabling regulators from the OPP core, what
My name is spelt Mark.
> about skipping that only for the regulators that are enabled at boot,
> i.e. to avoid the issue we faced earlier, (by exporting a helper from
> regulator core for that first) and then applying this patch again:
As ever if you have requirements for the voltage of a regulator you
should use regulator_set_voltage() to tell the core about it. The core
cannot be expected to infer these requirements without being told by the
users. If you need the voltage to be a particular level when you enable
the regulator you should set that voltage. Why can't the code do that
instead of trying to add these complex and fragile bodges? Randomly
skipping applying configurations some of the time is not going to make
anything more robust or easier to understand.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-13 10:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-09 19:56 Question about OPP regulator for Panfrost Devfreq Clément Péron
2020-05-11 5:25 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-05-12 20:51 ` Clément Péron
2020-05-13 5:46 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-05-13 8:18 ` Clément Péron
2020-05-13 9:19 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-05-13 10:18 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2020-05-13 10:40 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-05-13 11:00 ` Mark Brown
2020-05-13 11:03 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-05-13 11:36 ` Clément Péron
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=20200513101805.GA4803@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--cc=nm@ti.com \
--cc=peron.clem@gmail.com \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=vireshk@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.