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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230419-dynamic-vmon-v4-0-4d3734e62ada@skidata.com>
 <20230419-dynamic-vmon-v4-7-4d3734e62ada@skidata.com> <030a99f7-98f3-a24d-612c-d460859fc276@gmail.com>
 <08d6fc5d-30bc-4a55-a495-2a73b5800f79@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <08d6fc5d-30bc-4a55-a495-2a73b5800f79@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Benjamin Bara <bbara93@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jul 2023 20:43:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJpcXm6sPgW+z93sObv8rNjFxPsd4uzhHNNQaGmUR07kB0-BRg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 07/13] regulator: find active protections during initialization
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Matti & Mark,

thank you for the feedback!

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 18:49, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> 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 = <1>;
> > > or
> > > regulator-ov-error-microvolt = <0>;
> > >
> > > 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 warning
> > 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.

Thanks for clarifying. I will now activate the constraint instead of erroring
out. This guarantees that the workaround will still be applied, so basically
similar to the current bd718x7 implementation. I would still keep the message as
a warn, or should I drop it too? My idea is to let the user know that there is
some kind of monitoring going on but the device-tree is not aware of it.