On 2012-11-21 10:32, Alex Courbot wrote:

>> Ok. I'll need to dig up the conversation
> 
> IIRC it was somewhere around here:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/7/662
> 
> See the parent messages too.

Thanks.

>> Did you consider any examples
>> of how some driver could handle the error cases?
> 
> For all the (limited) use cases I considered, playing the power-off sequence 
> when power-on fails just works. If power-off also fails you are potentially in 
> more trouble though. Maybe we could have another "run" function that does not 
> stop on errors for handling such cases where you want to "stop everything you 
> can".

If the power-off sequence disables a regulator that was supposed to be
enabled by the power-on sequence (but wasn't enabled because of an
error), the regulator_disable is still called when the driver runs the
power-off sequence, isn't it? Regulator enables and disables are ref
counted, and the enables should match the disables.

> Failures might be better handled if sequences have some "recovery policy" 
> about what to do when they fail, as mentioned in the link above. As you 
> pointed out, the driver might not always know enough about the resources 
> involved to do the right thing.

Yes, I think such recovery policy would be needed.

 Tomi