From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Bara <bbara93@gmail.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: support.opensource@diasemi.com,
DLG-Adam.Ward.opensource@dm.renesas.com,
Martin Fuzzey <martin.fuzzey@flowbird.group>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@skidata.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 09/13] regulator: implement mon_disable_reg_disabled
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 13:31:05 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7097865e-d31b-099a-8b53-9e7264c64cd2@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230419-dynamic-vmon-v4-9-4d3734e62ada@skidata.com>
Hi deeee Ho Benjamin,
I hope your train back to home was not delayed too much ;)
On 6/20/23 23:03, Benjamin Bara wrote:
> From: Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@skidata.com>
>
> The mon_disable_reg_disabled
The name of this always makes me to scratch my head a bit. (or, maybe it
is just the sunburns at my bald).
Do you think making it:
mon_disable_at_reg_disable or mon_disable_when_reg_disabled would be too
long?
> property disables all dt-enabled monitors
> before a regulator is disabled. If an error occurs while disabling the
> regulator, the monitors are enabled again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@skidata.com>
> ---
> drivers/regulator/core.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
> index 873e53633698..b37dcafff407 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
> @@ -2965,7 +2965,7 @@ static int _regulator_do_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
>
> trace_regulator_enable_complete(rdev_get_name(rdev));
>
> - return 0;
> + return monitors_reenable(rdev, rdev->desc->mon_disable_reg_disabled);
As I wrote in my comment to previous patch, I might find the logic a bit
more clear if the condition check was done here. Eg:
if (rdev->desc->mon_disable_when_reg_disabled)
return monitors_reenable(...);
return 0;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -3124,8 +3124,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(regulator_enable);
>
> static int _regulator_do_disable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> {
> + const struct regulator_desc *desc = rdev->desc;
> int ret;
>
> + ret = monitors_disable(rdev, desc->mon_disable_reg_disabled);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
Similarly, for me the logic would be easier to follow if this was:
if (desc->mon_disable_when_reg_disabled)
monitors_disable(...);
> +
> trace_regulator_disable(rdev_get_name(rdev));
>
> if (rdev->ena_pin) {
> @@ -3136,13 +3141,13 @@ static int _regulator_do_disable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> rdev->ena_gpio_state = 0;
> }
>
> - } else if (rdev->desc->ops->disable) {
> - ret = rdev->desc->ops->disable(rdev);
> + } else if (desc->ops->disable) {
> + ret = desc->ops->disable(rdev);
> if (ret != 0)
> return ret;
> }
>
> - if (rdev->desc->off_on_delay)
> + if (desc->off_on_delay)
> rdev->last_off = ktime_get_boottime();
>
> trace_regulator_disable_complete(rdev_get_name(rdev));
> @@ -3180,6 +3185,7 @@ static int _regulator_disable(struct regulator *regulator)
> _notifier_call_chain(rdev,
> REGULATOR_EVENT_ABORT_DISABLE,
> NULL);
> + monitors_reenable(rdev, rdev->desc->mon_disable_reg_disabled);
same here,
> return ret;
> }
> _notifier_call_chain(rdev, REGULATOR_EVENT_DISABLE,
> @@ -3246,6 +3252,7 @@ static int _regulator_force_disable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> rdev_err(rdev, "failed to force disable: %pe\n", ERR_PTR(ret));
> _notifier_call_chain(rdev, REGULATOR_EVENT_FORCE_DISABLE |
> REGULATOR_EVENT_ABORT_DISABLE, NULL);
> + monitors_reenable(rdev, rdev->desc->mon_disable_reg_disabled);
here...
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -6422,8 +6429,10 @@ static int regulator_late_cleanup(struct device *dev, void *data)
> */
> rdev_info(rdev, "disabling\n");
> ret = _regulator_do_disable(rdev);
> - if (ret != 0)
> + if (ret != 0) {
> rdev_err(rdev, "couldn't disable: %pe\n", ERR_PTR(ret));
> + monitors_reenable(rdev, rdev->desc->mon_disable_reg_disabled);
... and here.
> + }
> } else {
> /* The intention is that in future we will
> * assume that full constraints are provided
>
These were just very minor things. Mostly looks good for me.
Yours,
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-03 10:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-20 20:02 [PATCH RFC v4 00/13] regulator: dynamic voltage monitoring support Benjamin Bara
2023-06-20 20:02 ` [PATCH RFC v4 01/13] regulator: da9063: fix null pointer deref with partial DT config Benjamin Bara
2023-06-20 20:02 ` [PATCH RFC v4 02/13] regulator: add getter for active monitors Benjamin Bara
2023-06-26 13:43 ` Matti Vaittinen
2023-06-26 16:37 ` Mark Brown
2023-06-20 20:02 ` [PATCH RFC v4 03/13] regulator: da9063: implement get_active_protections() Benjamin Bara
2023-06-20 20:02 ` [PATCH RFC v4 04/13] regulator: bd718x7: " Benjamin Bara
2023-06-26 13:45 ` Matti Vaittinen
2023-06-20 20:02 ` [PATCH RFC v4 05/13] regulator: introduce properties for monitoring workarounds Benjamin Bara
2023-06-26 13:47 ` Matti Vaittinen
2023-06-20 20:02 ` [PATCH RFC v4 06/13] regulator: set required ops " Benjamin Bara
2023-06-26 13:49 ` Matti Vaittinen
2023-06-20 20:03 ` [PATCH RFC v4 07/13] regulator: find active protections during initialization Benjamin Bara
2023-06-26 13:56 ` Matti Vaittinen
2023-06-26 16:49 ` Mark Brown
2023-07-03 18:43 ` Benjamin Bara
2023-07-04 13:49 ` Mark Brown
2023-06-20 20:03 ` [PATCH RFC v4 08/13] regulator: move monitor handling into own function Benjamin Bara
2023-06-26 14:04 ` Matti Vaittinen
2023-06-20 20:03 ` [PATCH RFC v4 09/13] regulator: implement mon_disable_reg_disabled Benjamin Bara
2023-07-03 10:31 ` Matti Vaittinen [this message]
2023-07-03 18:50 ` Benjamin Bara
2023-06-20 20:03 ` [PATCH RFC v4 10/13] regulator: implement mon_disable_reg_set_{higher,lower} Benjamin Bara
2023-07-03 10:45 ` Matti Vaittinen
2023-06-20 20:03 ` [PATCH RFC v4 11/13] regulator: implement mon_unsupported_reg_modes Benjamin Bara
2023-07-03 10:49 ` Matti Vaittinen
2023-06-20 20:03 ` [PATCH RFC v4 12/13] regulator: da9063: let the core handle the monitors Benjamin Bara
2023-06-20 20:03 ` [PATCH RFC v4 13/13] regulator: bd718x7: " Benjamin Bara
2023-07-03 11:02 ` Matti Vaittinen
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=7097865e-d31b-099a-8b53-9e7264c64cd2@gmail.com \
--to=mazziesaccount@gmail.com \
--cc=DLG-Adam.Ward.opensource@dm.renesas.com \
--cc=bbara93@gmail.com \
--cc=benjamin.bara@skidata.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.fuzzey@flowbird.group \
--cc=support.opensource@diasemi.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).