[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <D9ZATG8GW7VO.3CE92MUKXU65Q@nvidia.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 21:51:33 +0900
From: "Alexandre Courbot" <acourbot@...dia.com>
To: "Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>, "Daniel Almeida"
<daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, "Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@...nel.org>, "Alex
Gaynor" <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, "Gary
Guo" <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron
<bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, "Benno Lossin" <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
"Andreas Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, "Alice Ryhl"
<aliceryhl@...gle.com>, "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>, "Danilo
Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>, "Boris Brezillon"
<boris.brezillon@...labora.com>, "Sebastian Reichel"
<sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>, "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rust: regulator: add a bare minimum regulator
abstraction
On Sun May 18, 2025 at 9:20 PM JST, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 05:14:41PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>
>> The initial proposal does such clamping by design, but I also suspect
>> the C API behave like it does for good reasons (which I am not familiar
>> enough to be aware of unfortunately).
>
> It's so that if you have multiple logical users within the device (eg,
> an interrupt handler and code for normal operation) they can work
> independently of each other. You could also request the regulator
> multiple times but that's often not idiomatic.
I guess this means that we want to preserve this use-case with Rust as
well?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists