[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090312103744.GA24376@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:37:48 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...ena.org.uk>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
OMAP <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.29-rc7 regulator-next] regulator: refcount fixes
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 <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists