Re: [PATCH] regulator: core bugfix: Use normal enable for always_on regulators

2014-02-18 Thread Mark Brown
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:40:07PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:14:20AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > > I don't understand this. Why is this called _no_delay() and why don't > > we want to delay when applying constraints? We don't want to ever be in > > a position wher

Re: [PATCH] regulator: core bugfix: Use normal enable for always_on regulators

2014-02-18 Thread Markus Pargmann
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:14:20AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 08:00:56PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote: > > Please use more standard subject lines, don't do things like "core > bugfix", just write a normal changelog. Okay, will fix. > > > +static int _regulator_do_enable_

Re: [PATCH] regulator: core bugfix: Use normal enable for always_on regulators

2014-02-17 Thread Mark Brown
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 08:00:56PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote: Please use more standard subject lines, don't do things like "core bugfix", just write a normal changelog. > +static int _regulator_do_enable_no_delay(struct regulator_dev *rdev) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + if (rdev->ena_pin)