Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180523082908.GB4828@sirena.org.uk>
References: <41d5df73ddac772551d2966e0752bb0c357b1ded.1526088081.git.collinsd@codeaurora.org>
 <CAD=FV=XegPeFR8pdZM-YiBBJjrbej=C+2biBt4zJKnE90uTYZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <869aad59-1cc5-28ef-1fb5-4ef846696c40@codeaurora.org> <CAD=FV=U-QOQekUHj=ck57YJbTFdFjCAWr4t2A92x+fCNf+yV9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <dc1fbe9c-8973-1c4d-0fbd-809c1ec0a6be@codeaurora.org> <CAD=FV=XfSGs14VB464cvMGDNwGS4yvSXjN8itZLffm+Sj-D=ww@mail.gmail.com>
 <fb390ccb-927a-8449-05c3-8dcac964bfae@codeaurora.org> <CAD=FV=XARtQNo5Cyg78XuT26JUFgn=7BjWRnXPjP566=a-sF1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <a106c337-0713-e5d6-cb40-13e05f4d361d@codeaurora.org> <CAD=FV=W=BquL5ojORz4HNP889s=-uNJ-QEzUfAxwXj2Oa3cGew@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180523082908.GB4828@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 23 May 2018 08:23:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=XfPkpGD32MfTfcw02wQ+QetpUhY=P299uhpX6pY_iEvg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] regulator: dt-bindings: add QCOM RPMh regulator bindings
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> It's arguable either way - you could say that the client gets to specify
> a safe range at all times or you could say that the machine constraints
> should cover all cases where the hardware is idling.  Of course RPMh
> is missing anything like the machine constraints (as we can see from all
> the fixing up of undesirable hard coding we have to do) so it's kind of
> pushed towards the first case.

OK, fair enough.  If others all agree that it's OK to make requests
about the voltage of a disabled regulator then I won't stand in the
way.  I guess it does call into question the whole idea of caching /
not sending the voltage until the first enable because it means
there's no way for the client to use this feature until they've
enabled / disabled the regulator once.  If you think of it as invalid
to adjust the voltage of a disabled regulator then the caching
argument is super clean, but once you say that you should normally be
able to do it it feels more like a hacky workaround.  ...but I suppose
that's what we've got to live with...

-Doug