On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:40:09PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:49 AM Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:36:11AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > > 1. Would it be valid to say that it's always incorrect to set this > > > property if there is a way to read the status back from the regulator? > > As originally intended, yes. I'm now not 100% sure that it won't > > break any existing systems though :/ > Should I change the bindings doc to say that? Sure. > > It should be possible to do a regulator_disable() though I'm not > > sure anyone actually uses that. The pattern for a regular > > consumer should be the normal enable/disable pair to handle > > shared usage, only an exclusive consumer should be able to use > > just a straight disable. > Ah, I see, I wasn't aware of the "exclusive" special case! Marco: is > this working for you? I wonder if we need to match > "regulator->enable_count" to "rdev->use_count" at the end of > _regulator_get() in the exclusive case... Yes, I think that case has been missed when adding the enable counts - I've never actually had a system myself that made any use of this stuff. It probably needs an audit of the users to make sure nobody's relying on the current behaviour though I can't think how they would.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature