[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <08d6fc5d-30bc-4a55-a495-2a73b5800f79@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 17:49:39 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc: Benjamin Bara <bbara93@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
support.opensource@...semi.com,
DLG-Adam.Ward.opensource@...renesas.com,
Martin Fuzzey <martin.fuzzey@...wbird.group>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@...data.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 07/13] regulator: find active protections during
initialization
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:56:21PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 6/20/23 23:03, Benjamin Bara wrote:
> > Warning can be fixed by enabling (or disabling) monitoring in the DT,
> > e.g.:
> > regulator-uv-protection-microvolt = <1>;
> > or
> > regulator-ov-error-microvolt = <0>;
> >
> > Constraints regarding the monitoring of a regulator can usually be found
> > in the docu.
> I am not entirely sure if this is the right thing to do. Should we expect
> the hardware state to be what is described in DT at Linux boot-up - or,
> should we silently accept the fact that for example boot can alter things.
> From the 'code pov' I have no complaints though. I just can't say if warning
> is the right idea. I'll leave this for bigger brains to decide :)
Yes, this isn't really the idiom we normally adopt - the default thing
is to just leave the hardware untouched, that should not usually be
regarded as a problem.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists