From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Cc:     Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20230223003301.v2.1.I9719661b8eb0a73b8c416f9c26cf5bd8c0563f99@changeid>
References: <20230223003301.v2.1.I9719661b8eb0a73b8c416f9c26cf5bd8c0563f99@changeid>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: core: Use ktime_get_boottime() to
 determine how long a regulator was off
Message-Id: <167715694213.59264.12069624928598461545.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:55:42 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 00:33:30 +0000, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> For regulators with 'off-on-delay-us' the regulator framework currently
> uses ktime_get() to determine how long the regulator has been off
> before re-enabling it (after a delay if needed). A problem with using
> ktime_get() is that it doesn't account for the time the system is
> suspended. As a result a regulator with a longer 'off-on-delay' (e.g.
> 500ms) that was switched off during suspend might still incurr in a
> delay on resume before it is re-enabled, even though the regulator
> might have been off for hours. ktime_get_boottime() accounts for
> suspend time, use it instead of ktime_get().
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] regulator: core: Use ktime_get_boottime() to determine how long a regulator was off
      commit: 80d2c29e09e663761c2778167a625b25ffe01b6f

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark