[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ca0b3bbb-dfa4-454c-9304-318fbd8e7f78@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 14:49:02 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Benjamin Bara <bbara93@...il.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...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, Jul 03, 2023 at 08:43:47PM +0200, Benjamin Bara wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 18:49, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> Thanks for clarifying. I will now activate the constraint instead of erroring
> out. This guarantees that the workaround will still be applied, so basically
> similar to the current bd718x7 implementation. I would still keep the message as
> a warn, or should I drop it too? My idea is to let the user know that there is
> some kind of monitoring going on but the device-tree is not aware of it.
I would leave the warning off, I'd say it's more unusual that it might
be possible to disable the montioring than that it's being enabled - a
lot of devices either have fixed limits or only allow the limit to be
configured without allowing it to be completely disabled.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists