Hi,
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 4:27 PM Douglas Anderson wrote:
>
> In regulator_force_disable() there was a strange loop that looked like:
>
> while (rdev->open_count--)
> regulator_disable(rdev->supply);
>
> I'm not totally sure what the goal was for this loop, but it seems
> wrong to me.
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 4:27 PM Douglas Anderson wrote:
>
> In regulator_force_disable() there was a strange loop that looked like:
>
> while (rdev->open_count--)
> regulator_disable(rdev->supply);
>
> I'm not totally sure what the goal was for this loop, but it seems
> wrong to me.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 08:57:32AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> OK. I guess for now I'll just change this to disable the parent
> supply as many times as this individual consumer enabled it and call
> it good enough? It can be for someone else to figure out how to make
> it really usable for
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 08:57:32AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> OK. I guess for now I'll just change this to disable the parent
> supply as many times as this individual consumer enabled it and call
> it good enough? It can be for someone else to figure out how to make
> it really usable for
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 08:57:32AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 8:25 AM Mark Brown wrote:
> > I do wish there
> > were a way to flag API calls as needing review :(
> Would it be worth adding a WARN_ON(1) splat here or at least a
> "dev_warn" so people knew it wasn't
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 08:57:32AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 8:25 AM Mark Brown wrote:
> > I do wish there
> > were a way to flag API calls as needing review :(
> Would it be worth adding a WARN_ON(1) splat here or at least a
> "dev_warn" so people knew it wasn't
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 8:25 AM Mark Brown wrote:
>
> If something has been forced off the system is in very serious trouble
> and had a cricial safety problem, though the fact that there's error
> handling code that did the force disable might mean that there's some
> ability to recover the
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 8:25 AM Mark Brown wrote:
>
> If something has been forced off the system is in very serious trouble
> and had a cricial safety problem, though the fact that there's error
> handling code that did the force disable might mean that there's some
> ability to recover the
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 08:04:57AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> In general it's hard for me to reason about how the system in general
> should behave after regulator_force_disable() is called. Is it
> basically expected that the system will panic soon after?
> Specifically other consumers of
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 08:04:57AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> In general it's hard for me to reason about how the system in general
> should behave after regulator_force_disable() is called. Is it
> basically expected that the system will panic soon after?
> Specifically other consumers of
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 7:55 AM Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 04:26:54PM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > In regulator_force_disable() there was a strange loop that looked like:
> >
> > while (rdev->open_count--)
> > regulator_disable(rdev->supply);
> >
> > I'm not
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 7:55 AM Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 04:26:54PM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > In regulator_force_disable() there was a strange loop that looked like:
> >
> > while (rdev->open_count--)
> > regulator_disable(rdev->supply);
> >
> > I'm not
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 04:26:54PM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> In regulator_force_disable() there was a strange loop that looked like:
>
> while (rdev->open_count--)
> regulator_disable(rdev->supply);
>
> I'm not totally sure what the goal was for this loop, but it seems
> wrong to
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 04:26:54PM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> In regulator_force_disable() there was a strange loop that looked like:
>
> while (rdev->open_count--)
> regulator_disable(rdev->supply);
>
> I'm not totally sure what the goal was for this loop, but it seems
> wrong to
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 4:58 PM Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>
> On 20.11.2018 3:26, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > In regulator_force_disable() there was a strange loop that looked like:
> >
> > while (rdev->open_count--)
> > regulator_disable(rdev->supply);
> >
> > I'm not totally sure what
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 4:58 PM Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>
> On 20.11.2018 3:26, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > In regulator_force_disable() there was a strange loop that looked like:
> >
> > while (rdev->open_count--)
> > regulator_disable(rdev->supply);
> >
> > I'm not totally sure what
On 20.11.2018 3:26, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> In regulator_force_disable() there was a strange loop that looked like:
>
> while (rdev->open_count--)
> regulator_disable(rdev->supply);
>
> I'm not totally sure what the goal was for this loop, but it seems
> wrong to me. If anything I think
On 20.11.2018 3:26, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> In regulator_force_disable() there was a strange loop that looked like:
>
> while (rdev->open_count--)
> regulator_disable(rdev->supply);
>
> I'm not totally sure what the goal was for this loop, but it seems
> wrong to me. If anything I think
In regulator_force_disable() there was a strange loop that looked like:
while (rdev->open_count--)
regulator_disable(rdev->supply);
I'm not totally sure what the goal was for this loop, but it seems
wrong to me. If anything I think maybe we should have been looping
over our use_count, but
In regulator_force_disable() there was a strange loop that looked like:
while (rdev->open_count--)
regulator_disable(rdev->supply);
I'm not totally sure what the goal was for this loop, but it seems
wrong to me. If anything I think maybe we should have been looping
over our use_count, but
20 matches
Mail list logo
