From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.29-rc7 regulator-next] regulator: refcount fixes Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:37:48 +0000 Message-ID: <20090312103744.GA24376@sirena.org.uk> References: <200903111743.34708.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cassiel.sirena.org.uk ([80.68.93.111]:1271 "EHLO cassiel.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755743AbZCLKv0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:51:26 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200903111743.34708.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: David Brownell Cc: Liam Girdwood , lkml , OMAP On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 04:43:34PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > Buggy consumers could notice different bug symptoms. The main > example would be refcounting bugs; also, any (out-of-tree) users > of the experimental regulator_set_optimum_mode() stuff which > don't call it when they're done using a regulator. I'm OK with this from a code point of view so Acked-by: Mark Brown However any consumers that take advantage of this won't be able to safely share a regulator without extra work since they have no way of telling why a regulator is in the state that it's in without extra stuff. We should probably have something along the lines of a regulator_get_exclusive() for them. Previously the consumer counting would have stopped them interfering with enables done by other consumers. There will be other consumers that can't safely share a regulator anyway (eg, requiring additional code to notice and handle voltage changes) so it'd be a good thing to have.