[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191008154844.GM4382@sirena.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:48:44 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Kamil Konieczny <k.konieczny@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Skip balancing of the enabled
regulators in regulator_enable()
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:24:17PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> Commit 7f93ff73f7c8 ("opp: core: add regulators enable and disable")
> currently can be safely reverted as all affected users use always-on
> regulators. However IMHO it should be possible to enable always-on
> regulator without side-effects.
With coupled regulators you might have something kicking in because a
change was made on a completely different regulator... If we don't take
account of coupling requirements we'd doubtless have issues with that at
some point.
> When it comes to setting regulator constraints before doing enable
> operation, it also seems to be possible solution but would require
> splitting regulator_set_voltage() operation on two functions:
> - one for setting constraints (before regulator_enable() operation)
> - the other one actually setting voltage (after enable operation)
I don't follow? What would a "constraint" be in this context and how
would it be different to the voltage range you'd set in normal operation?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists