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, 12 Oct 2018 18:10:15 +0200
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio/regulator: Allow nonexclusive GPIO access
Message-ID: <20181012161015.GB2340@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20181011143531.7195-1-linus.walleij@linaro.org>
 <20181011144330.GF25351@sirena.org.uk>
 <CACRpkdbTnBQhPQARX77KfjtfWXY+t0oH6-B=WUN4hid8eQT0DA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181011175406.GH25351@sirena.org.uk>
 <CACRpkdY=ya9CJz0HbsdgzR+05SdoHQ+V17fY8sBtNtF482eXew@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MfFXiAuoTsnnDAfZ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdY=ya9CJz0HbsdgzR+05SdoHQ+V17fY8sBtNtF482eXew@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


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

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 08:41:16PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:54 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > Other regulators that have GPIO control for their enables do their own
> > requests (as does the core) so don't they all need to set the flag
> > GPIOD_FLAGS_BIT_NONEXCLUSIVE when they request otherwise it'll only work
> > in systems where the regulators after the first that request the GPIO
> > are fixed regulators?

> Yeah ... I guess I assumed that the same enable line is not used
> for a fixed regulator and then some other regulator (which is not
> fixed).

> If this is common practice we need to account for it. Obviously
> I have no idea what is common practice :/

> Do we know some way to identify the affected systems or
> should we just tag on GPIOD_FLAGS_BIT_NONEXCLUSIVE
> on all the stuff we converted to descs to play it safe?
> (I can cook a patch.)

I think we need to set the flag everywhere, previously we'd essentially
been doing it by asking the GPIO framework if we resolved the same
regulator as one we already had.

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

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

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAlvAx2cACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9DvIAf9GAoKZfFM7/tYx9y34exCWfCjeOYL8EM1B0GPQKbvX6oyvnRRac+ZT2Gc
eXxg3FizrYEwcTGpZvZkQPsw70R1UwFNEvIxNCvrSWgBuS3MeCvY9vRZBcdeopod
VSKsiaDdIkwOFxOv6pLNVDm2BegL8Fy0mV+FCqsbuwihTHG807mIo3XphiBPacU9
T7tQiht4DdRifP9YBZtvglMNEfj+BraoDGaVXMNHpqGKeAo/BOjO+6+QSBxnj2tK
OpbhJhSdNmWlFwcymy9jtPHyWRr+1EV848wccgsuBCxxhhM2idCTfHCROzncegxE
HUWv63F9js2jiSjAestCXW84nii6fA==
=pQSS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--MfFXiAuoTsnnDAfZ--