Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:09:36 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Harald Geyer <harald@ccbib.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <20161219110936.c3acatecdqdvzq7b@sirena.org.uk>
References: <E1cHAvO-0000Qg-Hv@stardust.g4.wien.funkfeuer.at>
 <20161214181405.7hyn4b6yxdetzn5p@sirena.org.uk>
 <E1cHslb-0000g0-0V@stardust.g4.wien.funkfeuer.at>
 <20161216165348.mha6d3faucxdript@sirena.org.uk>
 <E1cI0YN-0000LW-8z@stardust.g4.wien.funkfeuer.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5alzecyegezcjl2k"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E1cI0YN-0000LW-8z@stardust.g4.wien.funkfeuer.at>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161126 (1.7.1)
Subject: Re: Question about regulator API
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2402
Lines: 56


--5alzecyegezcjl2k
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:00:35PM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
> Mark Brown writes:

> > > I was hoping, that I somehow could get the necessary coordination from
> > > the regulator framework. If the best I can get ATM is notifications, then
> > > I'll try it and see what kind of code falls out of this.

> Ok, tried that and it turns out there is no notification at
> regulator_enable() ATM. I guess you'd merge a patch that added this
> notification?

Probably.

> Sure, this is why regulator_force_disable() is the wrong tool for the job.
> I was more looking for something (call it regulator_shutdown()) that
> * blocked until the regulator is actually off
> * made all calls to regulator_enable() from other consumers block (or fail)
> * maybe sent notifications to consumers, so that they have a chance to
>   cooperate and call regulator_disable() at their earliest convenience.
> * was undone by a call to either regulator_disable() or regulator_enable()
>   from the consumer that initially called regulator_shutdown()

> I haven't explored this in detail - maybe there are good reasons not to
> have it.

That sounds like a complete mess from a user point of view - unless the
other devices are actually cooperating it's going to have the same
effect as doing nothing at all except it'll block the initiating
consumer and possibly others doing enables, and as far as I can see it
doesn't solve your problems with needing the regulator to be powered off
for a specific amount of time.  If it made enable calls block it'd be
very disruptive for other users as they would suddenly find operations
taking vastly longer than they were expecting which could end up being
visible all the way back up to userspace.

--5alzecyegezcjl2k
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAlhXv/AACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9Dspgf8D49XkNcea0bMRVO01ZsczshuU3Vz77EU5l398BultGkSPUZW3zfMX0Ct
2dGtpGHgCXbSqGs9A0hMYka6JiVPNHI2XQ01uWMwrw6/cfWOWdO+DJ9GfwWkPWoO
5kkkn9UEMWH3xGvwkJ7w9NVOAriGWb2XOb2zrGE+rb7UL7G5k/svEODK1oEyXfsO
DQAILg5gIHKMZh57hlJrzRfmqPTE/lZCm7v2OSFqbG+ANaRWhZxIB91nenuFdrCi
w5NqQYr0qvby2hnUiJiu1Kz6+scGROn0t69xYMtDlTvKgN0u5uTzjtJ1oRrtSumn
zOSFG4+7lNVIGxaU2ZGZWvfe0ewKDg==
=Z/KP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5alzecyegezcjl2k--