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: <037cd5e2-0d3b-c20f-a444-99087b86706b@codeaurora.org>
References: <20180814170617.100087-1-dianders@chromium.org>
 <20180814170617.100087-2-dianders@chromium.org> <bf70f01d-41ac-dcdc-b503-5e0eb1e70329@codeaurora.org>
 <CAD=FV=VNCOyyq5+xvSudTmtBgPm4-s7gj7GRCvuL5vSmA6yDVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <aa2bd1f6-74b4-a63b-d115-88d6e16ed95d@codeaurora.org> <CAD=FV=WBw2SKgPq8Atb+SkziUku8p7N4GWemHYZZvoMSE0bK9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180815111318.GY2414@sirena.org.uk> <CAD=FV=VT6b1SmboyuBSGCnm17HTxxvAL8Hec23Dmc6Yfk5jYOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <037cd5e2-0d3b-c20f-a444-99087b86706b@codeaurora.org>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:03:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UnJMGRan=pOujXFkG2oHZUFoiHvk8om+=31SVu7-y6Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] regulator: core: If consumers don't call
 regulator_set_load() assume max
To:     David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:58 PM, David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Hello Doug,
>
> On 08/16/2018 01:07 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> I'll work on either adding more regulator_set_load() calls to clients
>> or perhaps disabling the "regulator-allow-set-load" for a bunch of
>> rails.  David: presumably if we have a rail that we never need to be
>> on-and-in-low-power-mode can just be left in high power mode all the
>> time?  There should be no advantage of being in low power mode for a
>> regulator that is off, right?
>
> Generally speaking, yes, that is true on both points.  The only caveat is
> that there could be a minor power penalty if APPS votes for OFF+HPM and a
> non-HLOS processor votes for ON+LPM for the same regulator.  This would
> lead to an aggregated state of ON+HPM when only ON+LPM is really needed.

OK, thanks for the confirmation.  ...so if we know that this is a rail
that the non HLOS has no business dealing with then this would be a
nice simplification so we don't need to go add code to all drivers
everywhere when all they want is a simple regulator that turns on and
off.

Presumably we could also add code somewhere in Linux that would
automatically vote for LPM for a regulator that has been disabled if
we had to.

-Doug