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:   Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:31:30 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To:     Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, lgirdwood@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@opensource.cirrus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] regulator: arizona-ldo1: Improve handling of
 regulator unbinding
Message-ID: <20200219123130.GE3494@dell>
References: <20200122110842.10702-1-ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
 <20200122131149.GE3833@sirena.org.uk>
 <20200123092639.GC4098@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com>
 <20200123114805.GA5440@sirena.org.uk>
 <20200123120240.GD4098@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200123120240.GD4098@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020, Charles Keepax wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:48:05AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 09:26:39AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > 
> > > 3) We could look at doing something in regmap IRQ to change when
> > > it does PM runtime calls, it is regmap doing runtime gets when
> > > drivers remove IRQs that causes the issue. But my accessment was
> > > that what regmap is doing makes perfect sense, so I don't think
> > > this is a good approach.
> > 
> > Why do you even care about the errors?  It's not like this device is
> > going to get removed in a production system and the primary IRQ will be
> > disabled when the core is removed, this is just something that happens
> > during development isn't it?
> 
> I am more than happy to do the leg work if we really don't like
> this solution. Do either you or Lee have any thoughts on my
> selective MFD remove helpers? That seemed like the most promising
> alternative solution to me.

It's hard to say without seeing your implementation, but it sounds
okay in principle.  Depends how messy it all ends up getting.  Sounds
like a scenario where a reverse -EDEFER_PROBE could be useful.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog