[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231023231114.GO3553829@hu-bjorande-lv.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 16:11:14 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@...nkonzept.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] regulator: core: Disable unused regulators with
unknown status
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 01:09:11PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 04:17:17PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
>
> > Instead of -EINVAL we could also use a different return code to indicate
> > the initial status is unknown. Or maybe there is some other option that
> > would be easier? This is working for me but I'm sending it as RFC to get
> > more feedback. :)
>
> The more normal thing here would be -EBUSY I think - -EINVAL kind of
> indicates that the operation will never work while in reality it could
> possibly work in future. Though for the RPMH it's not really the case
> that it ever supports readback, what it does is have it's own reference
> counting in the driver. Rather than doing this we should probably have
> logic in the core which sees that the driver has a write operation but
> no read operation and implements appropriate behaviour.
I like the suggestion to not implement is_enabled, and handle that in
the core instead, for all three generations of our rpm-based regulators.
Regards,
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists