[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Ve+_XurtoyOKizocyO0RkFaLvhR3mKp_pSvznmmGrQEXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 22:09:18 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Gaëtan André <rvlander@...tanandre.eu>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
Denis Ciocca <denis.ciocca@...com>,
linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/7] iio: st_sensors: Call st_sensors_power_enable()
from bus drivers
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 1:54 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 22:54:51 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > In case we would initialize two IIO devices from one physical device,
> > we shouldn't have a clash on regulators. That's why move
> > st_sensors_power_enable() call from core to bus drivers.
>
> Why is this a problem? The two instances would double up and both get +
> enable + disable the regulators. However, that shouldn't matter as
> they are reference counted anyway.
> Perhaps an example? Even in patch 6 I can only see that it is wasteful
> to do it twice, rather than wrong as such.
Yep, now I also understand that I do it twice after this patch. But
lemme check next week this all
P.S. I have real hardware to test on. But my tests I guess are limited
to iio_info or so.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists