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;
Date:   Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:48:54 +0200
From:   Marco Felsch <m.felsch@pengutronix.de>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     lgirdwood@gmail.com, m.purski@samsung.com, p.paillet@st.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: fix _regulator_do_disable return value
Message-ID: <20180713154854.qmnraejcdq6gqn3x@pengutronix.de>
References: <20180713125624.13783-1-m.felsch@pengutronix.de>
 <20180713130715.GC16228@sirena.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180713130715.GC16228@sirena.org.uk>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Mark,

tanks for the feedback.

On 18-07-13 14:07, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 02:56:24PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> 
> > Currently _regulator_do_disable returns 0 if either the ena_pin nor the
> > ops.disbale() isn't present. This assumes that the call was successful
> > but it wasn't because disbaling isn't supported at all.
> 
> > The last case of the if-chain should return -EINVAL, because disabling
> > isn't supported by the driver as it is done already by
> > _regulator_do_enable.
> 
> This is fine - consumers shouldn't expect that a disable will cause
> anything to actually get powered off, constraints or other consumers
> might mean that the disable doesn't actually happen.  It's just the same
> as a consumer with an always on flag.

Okay, I understand that the behaviour should be like the always-on
contrain. But now the behaviour of the core is like my v1 of
"Re-Enable support to disable switch regulators". It's like a 'simulated
off', which wasn't a good solution for you. The difference is, that the
'simulated off' is now made in the core.

Regards,
Marco