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:   Tue, 24 Sep 2019 11:27:58 -0700
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc:     Marco Felsch <m.felsch@pengutronix.de>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@linaro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] regulator: core: fix boot-on regulators use_count
 usage
Message-ID: <20190924182758.GC2036@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20190917154021.14693-1-m.felsch@pengutronix.de>
 <20190917154021.14693-2-m.felsch@pengutronix.de>
 <CAD=FV=W7M8mwQqnPyU9vsK5VAdqqJdQdyxcoe9FRRGTY8zjnFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190923181431.GU2036@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAD=FV=WVGj8xzKFFxsjpeuqtVzSvv22cHmWBRJtTbH00eC=E9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190923184907.GY2036@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAD=FV=VkaXDn034EFnJWYvWwyLgvq7ajfgMRm9mbhQeRKmPDRQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uMD30mxrM/iO8yI3"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=VkaXDn034EFnJWYvWwyLgvq7ajfgMRm9mbhQeRKmPDRQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--uMD30mxrM/iO8yI3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:40:09PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:49 AM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:36:11AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:

> > > 1. Would it be valid to say that it's always incorrect to set this
> > > property if there is a way to read the status back from the regulator?

> > As originally intended, yes.  I'm now not 100% sure that it won't
> > break any existing systems though :/

> Should I change the bindings doc to say that?

Sure.

> > It should be possible to do a regulator_disable() though I'm not
> > sure anyone actually uses that.  The pattern for a regular
> > consumer should be the normal enable/disable pair to handle
> > shared usage, only an exclusive consumer should be able to use
> > just a straight disable.

> Ah, I see, I wasn't aware of the "exclusive" special case!  Marco: is
> this working for you?  I wonder if we need to match
> "regulator->enable_count" to "rdev->use_count" at the end of
> _regulator_get() in the exclusive case...

Yes, I think that case has been missed when adding the enable
counts - I've never actually had a system myself that made any
use of this stuff.  It probably needs an audit of the users to
make sure nobody's relying on the current behaviour though I
can't think how they would.

--uMD30mxrM/iO8yI3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAl2KYC0ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9Bi9Qf/eBRr9wwlGQ2FMJOED0zECVIPit6Vf3FVdmFrjp3PyY6Fh+LlwcHs3/3j
c12CzWN8RhLBFHLGS3pBoQ1+5Ye0bYjv+ryTtNzYUAv7npXMYJTV4ae3rsgY4Hd5
Sfs+lz3d2Co5TJ7aF+CBP1qFSjVQb28v5lsx3IBV6i5+2lm2Vtq9JOMXgno6aMcU
ojHBTKKLYK7vft/65lltxopiRJ5XyE0GBppaNWvS1cewc+cpdcJsw5p1SYOidkQh
zADgVSyfUps8fdr2EemHJu5WsfT0A/iFoEEsQCMB4IyMRF5tAtT2YffhoNl6PZkP
LXLXO6fRmz4Ow8SuRTX0X9FdFojJJQ==
=wK9+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--uMD30mxrM/iO8yI3--