[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140219014615.GK2669@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:46:15 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Markus Pargmann <mpa@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core bugfix: Use normal enable for always_on
regulators
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:40:07PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:14:20AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I don't understand this. Why is this called _no_delay() and why don't
> > we want to delay when applying constraints? We don't want to ever be in
> > a position where we think a supply is enabled but it has in fact not
> > finished ramping, and of course enable() may in fact be blocking anyway.
> I tried not to modify the current behaviour of the core driver for
> non-gpio regulators. Before this patch only ops->enable() was called
> which also didn't have a delay. So I seperated the non-delay enable
> function to have the same behaviour for normal regulators.
No, that's not good. The fact that it wasn't applying delays is going
to be a bug - it should've been doing that.
> Also the constraints are applied when registering a new regulator. For
> "boot-on" we should not delay because this regulator is already on by
> definition. But I am not sure what to do with always-on regulators?
I'd just always apply a delay, it's simpler and more robust.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists