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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Skip balancing of the enabled
 regulators in regulator_enable()
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Kamil Konieczny <k.konieczny@samsung.com>
From:   Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <3cc6b317-5fab-ee46-cd27-d3a71b436dfa@samsung.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:29:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
        Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191010135507.GS2036@sirena.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CMS-TYPE: 201P
References: <be8d3280-9855-ed18-b2ab-d7fb28d80b82@gmail.com>
        <20191008161535.GN4382@sirena.co.uk>
        <4ad890b7-705e-94f9-2e61-1f3a60984c91@gmail.com>
        <20191008171747.GS4382@sirena.co.uk>
        <439154a4-1502-40af-7086-d4e3eb24025f@gmail.com>
        <CGME20191008180759epcas3p3c367142db499635c71d9601dd3e63956@epcas3p3.samsung.com>
        <20191008180750.GT4382@sirena.co.uk>
        <c9e3ff21-ec50-97c2-06cb-b2f44c70eac8@samsung.com>
        <20191009141352.GC3929@sirena.co.uk>
        <c1a50291-5260-357d-1701-47526dbcd62c@samsung.com>
        <20191010135507.GS2036@sirena.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Mark,

On 10.10.2019 15:55, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> On 09.10.2019 16:13, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> We should revert the enable call, it shouldn't be required, and ideally
>>> the default balancer could be updated to only make configuration changes
>>> if they're actually required which would help avoid triggering any such
>>> things in future if we don't absolutely have to.
>> Okay, Then in case of regulator core - do you accept the initial patch
>> as it indeed forces the default balancer to avoid unnecessary changes,
>> or do you want me to rewrite it to assume min_uV = current_uV for the
>> already enabled regulators during the initial balancing, like suggested
>> by Dmitry?
> Neither, I'm suggesting you make the change above.

I've posted a revert:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/17/267

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland