Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200508204200.13481-1-sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
 <20200508204200.13481-4-sumit.semwal@linaro.org> <20200511103937.GC8216@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAO_48GFGpHeu_xb9XT9CFMOSUOJgRrb-z_KZ3-r3X78s-2ddjw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO_48GFGpHeu_xb9XT9CFMOSUOJgRrb-z_KZ3-r3X78s-2ddjw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 27 May 2020 22:01:27 +0530
Message-ID: <CAO_48GF0tjZDmTS+Fa4fv+cfH4skFZP_a9A=P7D0b_si4AFj5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v2 3/4] regulator: qcom: Add labibb driver
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     agross@kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        lgirdwood@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        Nisha Kumari <nishakumari@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kgunda@codeaurora.org,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Mark,

On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 16:57, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hello Mark,
>
> Thank you for your review comments!
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 16:09, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 02:11:59AM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:
> >
> > > +     ret = regmap_bulk_read(reg->regmap, reg->base +
> > > +                            REG_LABIBB_STATUS1, &val, 1);
> > > +     if (ret < 0) {
> > > +             dev_err(reg->dev, "Read register failed ret = %d\n", ret);
> > > +             return ret;
> > > +     }
> >
> > Why a bulk read of a single register?
> Right, will change.
> >
> > > +static int _check_enabled_with_retries(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> > > +                     int retries, int enabled)
> > > +{
> >
> > This is not retrying, this is polling to see if the regulator actually
> > enabled.
> Yes, will update accordingly.
>
> >
> > > +static int qcom_labibb_regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> > > +{
> >
> > > +     ret = _check_enabled_with_retries(rdev, retries, 1);
> > > +     if (ret < 0) {
> > > +             dev_err(reg->dev, "retries exhausted: enable %s regulator\n",
> > > +                     reg->desc.name);
> > > +             return ret;
> > > +     }
> >
> > If this is useful factor it out into a helper or the core, other devices
> > also have status bits saying if the regulator is enabled.  It looks like
> > this may be mainly trying to open code something like enable_time, with
> > possibly some issues where the time taken to enable varies a lot.
> >
> Makes sense; I am not terribly familiar with the regulator core and
> helpers, so let me look and refactor accordingly.
Does something like this make sense, or did I misunderstand your
suggestion completely? I'll send the updated patches accordingly.

--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -2353,6 +2353,7 @@ static int _regulator_do_enable(struct
regulator_dev *rdev)
+       /* If max_time_poll_enabled is set for the regulator,
+        * Poll upto max_time_poll_enabled time to see if the regulator
+        * actually got enabled.
+        * For each iteration, wait for the enable_time delay calculated
+        * above already.
+        * If the regulator isn't enabled after max_time_poll_enabled has
+        * expired, return -REG_ENABLED_CHECK_FAILED.
+        */
+       if (rdev->desc->max_time_poll_enabled) {
+               unsigned int remaining_time_to_poll =
rdev->desc->max_time_poll_enabled;
+
+               while (remaining_time_to_poll > 0) {
+                       /* We've already waited for enable_time above;
+                        * so we can start with immediate check of the
+                        * status of the regulator.
+                        */
+                       if (rdev->desc->ops->is_enabled(rdev))
+                               break;
+
+                       _regulator_enable_delay(delay);
+                       remaining_time_to_poll -= delay;
+               }
+
+               if (remaining_time_to_poll <= 0) {
+                       rdev_err(rdev, "Enabled check failed.\n");
+                       return -REG_ENABLED_CHECK_FAILED;
+               }
+       }
+

Since atleast in my use case, the delay is really enable_time (time
before we could check the status register), we could reuse the
already-calculated 'delay' based on enable_time?
>
<snip>

Best,
Sumit.