[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8294996d-84ee-dff2-7369-00c17348a09c@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:53:57 +0530
From: Nisha Kumari <nishakumari@...eaurora.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
agross@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, mark.rutland@....com,
david.brown@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kgunda@...eaurora.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] regulator: adding interrupt handling in labibb
regulator
On 6/13/2019 10:57 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:30:52PM +0530, Nisha Kumari wrote:
>
>> +static void labibb_sc_err_recovery_work(void *_labibb)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> + struct qcom_labibb *labibb = (struct qcom_labibb *)_labibb;
>> +
>> + labibb->ibb_vreg.vreg_enabled = 0;
>> + labibb->lab_vreg.vreg_enabled = 0;
>> +
>> + ret = qcom_ibb_regulator_enable(labibb->lab_vreg.rdev);
> The driver should *never* enable the regulator itself, it should only do
> this if the core told it to.
Ok, I will change it
>
>> + /*
>> + * The SC(short circuit) fault would trigger PBS(Portable Batch
>> + * System) to disable regulators for protection. This would
>> + * cause the SC_DETECT status being cleared so that it's not
>> + * able to get the SC fault status.
>> + * Check if LAB/IBB regulators are enabled in the driver but
>> + * disabled in hardware, this means a SC fault had happened
>> + * and SCP handling is completed by PBS.
>> + */
> Let the core worry about this, the driver should just report the problem
> to the core like all other devices do (and this driver doesn't...).
Ok
Thanks,
Nisha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists