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;
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 17:49:39 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
Cc:     Benjamin Bara <bbara93@gmail.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        support.opensource@diasemi.com,
        DLG-Adam.Ward.opensource@dm.renesas.com,
        Martin Fuzzey <martin.fuzzey@flowbird.group>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@skidata.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 07/13] regulator: find active protections during
 initialization
Message-ID: <08d6fc5d-30bc-4a55-a495-2a73b5800f79@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20230419-dynamic-vmon-v4-0-4d3734e62ada@skidata.com>
 <20230419-dynamic-vmon-v4-7-4d3734e62ada@skidata.com>
 <030a99f7-98f3-a24d-612c-d460859fc276@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jBYkEf8Gah+7Cv60"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <030a99f7-98f3-a24d-612c-d460859fc276@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


--jBYkEf8Gah+7Cv60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:56:21PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 6/20/23 23:03, Benjamin Bara wrote:

> > Warning can be fixed by enabling (or disabling) monitoring in the DT,
> > e.g.:
> > regulator-uv-protection-microvolt =3D <1>;
> > or
> > regulator-ov-error-microvolt =3D <0>;
> >=20
> > Constraints regarding the monitoring of a regulator can usually be found
> > in the docu.

> I am not entirely sure if this is the right thing to do. Should we expect
> the hardware state to be what is described in DT at Linux boot-up - or,
> should we silently accept the fact that for example boot can alter things.

> From the 'code pov' I have no complaints though. I just can't say if warn=
ing
> is the right idea. I'll leave this for bigger brains to decide :)

Yes, this isn't really the idiom we normally adopt - the default thing
is to just leave the hardware untouched, that should not usually be
regarded as a problem.

--jBYkEf8Gah+7Cv60
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmSZwaMACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9A9AQf+JCwR05HQvAZptjbBH8ZJk0cx7I6V68t1BVndeViMr7PbqgW44nyiHQRb
TvwrSlGTj34zGSXItM+srnOJBdPLxH1UrrBPA0UFcY5J6Zn0e7YJ+V3KKA9khhDT
vqZTFhbzBbSImS8Kj32j7sL2FflJVX46Ob66LKsD8zi0FXpl+HHiuqBuKntQ7gss
iz2+vtrYlJTNxlEKB/f09dvN42KyQz/NmT46gKKAGMNykdpZsJcmvfiYMcKhl35F
mOlQCsqBCxMbwKe3xjNV1PTXCT6q3AjtuG4eG65kx1MKl/DTGqBSd9lJFaXzfFRB
3hrCBBxLyBWzhZ6MTHmdSb4+ekTrnA==
=923m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jBYkEf8Gah+7Cv60--