[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UHhfLn+S8F60EPoC0ip6YzmrihfTz=KmmauXHCxof2QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 06:57:27 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>,
Jonathan Marek <jonathan@...ek.ca>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Rajeev Nandan <quic_rajeevny@...cinc.com>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vladimir Lypak <vladimir.lypak@...il.com>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>,
José Expósito <jose.exposito89@...il.com>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dsi: Don't set a load before
disabling a regulator
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 4:53 PM Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/25/2022 5:49 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > As of commit 5451781dadf8 ("regulator: core: Only count load for
> > enabled consumers"), a load isn't counted for a disabled
> > regulator. That means all the code in the DSI driver to specify and
> > set loads before disabling a regulator is not actually doing anything
> > useful. Let's remove it.
> >
> > It should be noted that all of the loads set that were being specified
> > were pointless noise anyway. The only use for this number is to pick
> > between low power and high power modes of regulators. Regulators
> > appear to do this changeover at loads on the order of 10000 uA. You
> > would a lot of clients of the same rail for that 100 uA number to
>
> I guess you meant "you would need a lot of clients"
Yeah, sorry. :( I'll fix it up if I need a v3.
> > @@ -259,15 +259,7 @@ static inline struct msm_dsi_host *to_msm_dsi_host(struct mipi_dsi_host *host)
> > static void dsi_host_regulator_disable(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host)
> > {
> It seems like now we can drop this function dsi_host_regulator_disable()
> entirely and just call regulator_bulk_disable() ?
Sure, if you want. One could still argue that it provides a tiny bit
of abstraction and avoids the caller from having to know where to find
the number of regulators and all that, but I can go either way. Is
this worth a v3, do you think? If so, I might tack it on at the end of
the series.
Note that I say "v3" because I actually included this patch in a
larger series and called that series "v2" [1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220726173824.1166873-1-dianders@chromium.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists