[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <355213ef-106c-4383-88e7-9b40f5b1c1ef@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 18:15:18 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Saikiran <bjsaikiran@...il.com>, lgirdwood@...il.com,
andersson@...nel.org, konradybcio@...nel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
krzk+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: regulator: qcom,rpmh: Allow
regulator-off-on-delay-us
On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 11:49:42AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 12:32:10AM +0530, Saikiran wrote:
> > This property is required for platforms where specific rails (like camera
> > LDOs) rely on passive discharge and need a mandatory off-time constraint
> > enforced by the regulator core.
> Does enforcing some off time on all your regulators cause some negative
> impact on the ones that don't need it? If turning them back on is
> performance critical maybe don't turn them off in the first place.
You might see something like unexpectedly long delays resuming a runtime
suspended device. Generally I'd say that if the delays needed for
something like this are long enough for anyone to notice they're long
enough to be disruptive.
Having said that I believe an active discharge feature in the hardware
has been identified and is being investigated, that's generally a vastly
better solution all round so hopefully this change isn't needed at all.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists