[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141029100142.GR18557@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:01:42 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] regulator: max77686: Add suspend disable for some
LDOs
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:20:13AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On wto, 2014-10-28 at 22:31 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This looks wrong, you're using the regular enable operation as suspend
> > enable. How does that work without disrupting the current runtime
> > state?
> Currently it shouldn't disrupt state of regulator because during runtime
> it may only be only: on (0x3) or off (0x0). Suspend enable in max77686
> writes 0x3 to the register which means - always on.
> If regulator was disabled before suspend then it has to be enabled
> during suspend_enable() call which is exactly what max77686_enable does.
> If it was enabled then nothing happens.
No, this isn't suspend enable control - this is normal, standard enable
control and the device has no suspend enable control.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists