On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:16:06AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: *Please* remember to trim context when replying.
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > In one of my cases I am also using a regulator, but from a board > > configuration point of view I know I am the only user on this > > regulator, thus I can be sure I can switch it off when I want. > So, do I understand correctly, that if we get a regulator exclusively and > it is capable of changing status (REGULATOR_CHANGE_STATUS) and it is not > always on, then we can assume, that every call to regulator_enable() / > regulator_disable() with a suitable use count _will_ switch power off or > on? Maybe then we could adjust mmc_regulator_get_supply() accordingly - > first try to get the regulator exclusively, if it fails, try shared. If > succeeded and the conditions are satisfied - set the new PWR_CYCLE flag. This use case is what regulator_get_exclusive() was added for. The method you are suggesting there is not a good one, though - if the supply is shared it will cause the first MMC controller to get the regulator and the others to fail. However I think we should probably fix this by having code in the regulator core which checks if multiple consumers are mapped and refuses to allow get_exclusive() in that case.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
