[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50AC956D.7020303@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:48:45 +0200
From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>
To: Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
CC: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>,
Mark Zhang <markz@...dia.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 1/3] Runtime Interpreted Power Sequences
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
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (898 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists