On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:16:22PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> On 19-10-08 17:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> > As you'll have seen from the discussion that's a bug, nothing should be
> > taking a reference to the regulator outside of explicit enable calls.
> Okay now we are on the right way :) Is the
On 19-10-08 17:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 06:16:40PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > On 19-10-08 16:42, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > If this is a GPIO regulator then the Linux APIs mean you can't read the
> > > status back so it's one of the regulators for which this property was
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 06:16:40PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> On 19-10-08 16:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> > If this is a GPIO regulator then the Linux APIs mean you can't read the
> > status back so it's one of the regulators for which this property was
> > invented. This is a real limitation of
On 19-10-08 16:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 04:56:05PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > On 19-10-08 13:51, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > No, we shouldn't do anything when the regulator probes - we'll only
> > > disable unused regulators when we get to the end of boot (currently we
>
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 04:56:05PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> On 19-10-08 13:51, Mark Brown wrote:
> > No, we shouldn't do anything when the regulator probes - we'll only
> > disable unused regulators when we get to the end of boot (currently we
> > delay this by 30s to give userspace a chance
On 19-10-08 13:51, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:03:11AM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > On 19-10-07 19:29, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:34:29AM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
>
> > > > Sorry that won't fix my problem. If I drop the regulator-boot-on state
> > >
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:03:11AM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> On 19-10-07 19:29, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:34:29AM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > > Sorry that won't fix my problem. If I drop the regulator-boot-on state
> > > the fixed-regulator will disable this regulator
On 19-10-07 19:29, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:34:29AM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
>
> > Sorry that won't fix my problem. If I drop the regulator-boot-on state
> > the fixed-regulator will disable this regulator but disable/enable this
> > regulator is only valid during
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:34:29AM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> Sorry that won't fix my problem. If I drop the regulator-boot-on state
> the fixed-regulator will disable this regulator but disable/enable this
> regulator is only valid during suspend/resume. I don't say that my fix
> is correct
Hi Doug, Mark,
On 19-10-01 12:57, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 1:47 AM Marco Felsch wrote:
> > > > > > 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
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 12:03:12PM +, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 12:32 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > If you want the regulator to be on without any driver present then
> > mark
> > it always-on. If you want the regulator to be enabled prior to the
> > driver being loaded
On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 12:32 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 09:34:43AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 12:57:31PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > > I don't think your fix is correct. It sounds as if the intention
> > > of
> > > "regulator-boot-on" is
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 09:34:43AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 12:57:31PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > I don't think your fix is correct. It sounds as if the intention of
> > "regulator-boot-on" is to have the OS turn the regulator on at bootup
> > and it keep an
Hi dee Ho Peeps,
Long time no hear =)
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 12:57:31PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 1:47 AM Marco Felsch wrote:
> > > > > > It should be possible to do a regulator_disable() though I'm not
> > > > > > sure anyone actually uses that. The
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 1:47 AM Marco Felsch wrote:
> > > > > 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,
Hi Doug, Mark,
sorry for the delay..
On 19-09-26 12:44, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:28 AM Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:40:09PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:49 AM Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:28 AM Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:40:09PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:49 AM Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:36:11AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> > > > 1. Would it be valid to say that it's
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:40:09PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:49 AM Mark Brown 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
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:49 AM Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:36:11AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:14 AM Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Boot on means that it's powered on when the kernel starts, it's
> > > for regulators that we can't read back
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:36:11AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:14 AM Mark Brown wrote:
> > Boot on means that it's powered on when the kernel starts, it's
> > for regulators that we can't read back the status of.
> 1. Would it be valid to say that it's always
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:14 AM Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:02:26AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> > I will freely admit my ignorance here, but I've always been slightly
> > confused by the "always-on" vs. "boot-on" distinction...
>
> > The bindings say:
>
> >
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:02:26AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> I will freely admit my ignorance here, but I've always been slightly
> confused by the "always-on" vs. "boot-on" distinction...
> The bindings say:
> regulator-always-on:
> description: boolean, regulator should never be
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 8:40 AM Marco Felsch wrote:
>
> Since commit 1fc12b05895e ("regulator: core: Avoid propagating to
> supplies when possible") regulators marked with boot-on can't be
> disabled anymore because the commit handles always-on and boot-on
> regulators the same way.
>
> Now
Since commit 1fc12b05895e ("regulator: core: Avoid propagating to
supplies when possible") regulators marked with boot-on can't be
disabled anymore because the commit handles always-on and boot-on
regulators the same way.
Now commit 05f224ca6693 ("regulator: core: Clean enabling always-on
24 matches
Mail list logo
