[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190109165706.GG10405@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:57:06 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com
Cc: Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
lgirdwood@...il.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, pavel@....cz,
len.brown@...el.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] regulator: core: add helper to check if regulator
is disabled in suspend
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 10:56:32AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
>
> Add helper to check if regulator will be disabled in suspend.
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
This feels like it's the wrong way round - if this is configurable I'd
expect something to configure the suspend mode and then for that to
arrange to configure the regulator appropriately (along with anything
else that needs doing) rather than to infer the configuration from the
regulator state which feels fragile. But based on the cover letter
that's kind of like what the initial proposal about target states was so
perhaps this is the way we end up going... this certainly looks a lot
less impactful that the target state stuff though.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists