Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <80b09e1b-f00e-4c78-6627-111959779376@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 12:12:30 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Content-Language: en-US, en-GB
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>,
        linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
        Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@9elements.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sascha Hauer <sha@pengutronix.de>,
        jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.com>,
        "Mutanen, Mikko" <Mikko.Mutanen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
References: <20230328150335.90238-1-Naresh.Solanki@9elements.com>
 <20230328150335.90238-2-Naresh.Solanki@9elements.com>
 <c88d3cdd-fb2f-c3ac-a9e8-e49f8e98b811@gmail.com>
 <17934bff-f728-d57a-c3c8-956634bd48c8@roeck-us.net>
 <3be67394-6082-1aeb-8a8d-90149217bdc7@gmail.com>
 <aea044ab-3a83-2369-aff7-5ef153618619@roeck-us.net>
 <0672fe4d-7293-4374-9186-29b008e5f8a2@sirena.org.uk>
 <CANhJrGO3X7pSsMBg6Gtf-q3=_JiCX4Qs=pGudL=etooM2F676g@mail.gmail.com>
 <d6a3ca82-7245-45e1-b8ff-a9970671b04f@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] hwmon: (pmbus/core): Add regulator event support
In-Reply-To: <d6a3ca82-7245-45e1-b8ff-a9970671b04f@sirena.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/6/23 16:43, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 11:00:02AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>> ke 5. huhtik. 2023 klo 18.19 Mark Brown (broonie@kernel.org) kirjoitti:
>>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 07:18:32AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:

>> Or, is it so that no "generic handling" of these errors is to be
>> expected? Eg, consumers who implement any handling must always be
>> targeted to a very specific system? My thinking has been that the
>> device sending the notification knows the severity of the problem and
>> - for example the REGULATOR_EVENT_REGULATION_OUT is only sent with
>> such severe problems that consumers can try disabling the regulator,
>> whereas the _WARN level notifications may not warrant such action. But
>> again, I don't think we have a specification for this - so this is
>> just my thinking - which may be off.
> 
> Do we actually have practical examples of systems sending warnings that
> aren't followed in very short order by more severe errors, notified or
> otherwise?

I asked about this from the hardware colleague(s) in Japan. This far 
they were not able to provide me a concrete information.

One potential example use-case they mentioned was "rejecting and 
re-doing a measurement if regulator warnings are flagged". This sounds 
(to me) like using a voltage from a regulator as some measurement 
reference or supply, with very strict warning limits. Still, as said, I 
did not have a concrete example if/where this is actually implemented - 
which means the answer to your question remains still "no".

Yours,
	-- Matti

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~