[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150304112712.GI21293@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:27:12 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: milo.kim@...com, Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
Paul Stewart <pstew@...omium.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Fix enable GPIO reference counting
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:21:21PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> It looks as if "ena_gpio_state" is not quite what I thought it was and
> I think is not actually consistent in the regulator framework itself.
> In _regulator_do_enable() and _regulator_do_disable() is clear that
> ena_gpio_state is 1 when an "rdev" is enabled and 0 when the "rdev" is
> disabled. That was my assumption. It's also clear in
> _regulator_is_enabled().
> ...but then I looked in regulator_register(). There you can see that
> ena_gpio_state could be set to 1 if you've got an active low GPIO that
> is disabled at boot. That totally throws my logic for a loop. Also
> with my patch the reference counting will be all messed up for active
> high / boot on regulators. :(
Isn't that just a bug in the registration code? I'd not be entirely
surprised if that were the case.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists