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, 18 Oct 2019 10:00:26 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Cc:     linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        Kamil Konieczny <k.konieczny@samsung.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] opp: core: Revert "add regulators enable and disable"
Message-ID: <20191018043026.xm7a6emczm6w7bck@vireshk-i7>
References: <CGME20191017102843eucas1p164993b3644d006481fb041e36175eebe@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
 <20191017102758.8104-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191017102758.8104-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 17-10-19, 12:27, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> All the drivers, which use the OPP framework control regulators, which
> are already enabled. Typically those regulators are also system critical,
> due to providing power to CPU core or system buses. It turned out that
> there are cases, where calling regulator_enable() on such boot-enabled
> regulator has side-effects and might change its initial voltage due to
> performing initial voltage balancing without all restrictions from the
> consumers. Until this issue becomes finally solved in regulator core,
> avoid calling regulator_enable()/disable() from the OPP framework.
> 
> This reverts commit 7f93ff73f7c8c8bfa6be33bcc16470b0b44682aa.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
> ---
> This is a follow-up from the following discussion:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/9/541

I suppose this must go the v5.4-rcs, right ?

-- 
viresh