[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160411130914.GA16994@ulmo.ba.sec>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:09:14 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: core: Resolve supply earlier
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 01:58:14PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 01:46:12PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:59:02AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> > > Also, if we add this call, then I am wondering if we still need ...
> > >
> > > class_for_each_device(®ulator_class, NULL, NULL,
> > > regulator_register_resolve_supply);
>
> > Possibly not. That line was introduced to hook up existing orphan
> > regulators with their parents when they were registered, but I guess
> > since we now always defer probe if a parent isn't registered yet the
> > line would become a no-op.
>
> That then takes us right the way back to the original problem where
> people we're getting upset at the number of probe deferrals they were
> seeing and more importantly we didn't have any way of sorting out
> dependencies within a single PMIC if the parents weren't registered
> before their children.
Isn't that usually solved by making each regulator of a PMIC a separate
device (platform device, typically, for MFD devices? That way each of
them is probed separately allowing the dependency cycle to be broken.
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists