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:   Tue, 4 Jul 2023 14:49:02 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Benjamin Bara <bbara93@gmail.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 07/13] regulator: find active protections during
 initialization
Message-ID: <ca0b3bbb-dfa4-454c-9304-318fbd8e7f78@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>
 <08d6fc5d-30bc-4a55-a495-2a73b5800f79@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAJpcXm6sPgW+z93sObv8rNjFxPsd4uzhHNNQaGmUR07kB0-BRg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="W63c7pdVT9Jje+c+"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJpcXm6sPgW+z93sObv8rNjFxPsd4uzhHNNQaGmUR07kB0-BRg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


--W63c7pdVT9Jje+c+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 08:43:47PM +0200, Benjamin Bara wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 18:49, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > 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.

I would leave the warning off, I'd say it's more unusual that it might
be possible to disable the montioring than that it's being enabled - a
lot of devices either have fixed limits or only allow the limit to be
configured without allowing it to be completely disabled.

--W63c7pdVT9Jje+c+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmSkI00ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9BCkwf/VJYuQry5uylU4oN4StQNYW3IdVi/i/Wh4QmjuJxcJfQMUINKRyKB/Yet
ZOoP03oOc6woS0amSyXu37BG0dz2rYCMGNNmg66LyVTi+wfsn3d+S9C5j4ciVUfX
HpRYtz3PNWvp3uBJjWwz3fAVGITXE7qw1lgKt49irty7Q+txsAruinu789Vnq0+l
HulQzceHMlfNmqg56Ty3TsmTN/O0Twsn7XNuCZCTQFaIuzypFiNHsyf1RD4eb5Vo
+yzjhcOzcUbvO8le/plklmueBo3iTV1SGH9JwmTfWqaTQGopYObHoXIaA1P6DObx
FBQpLj+gdoiw4qvjwWzDrNAlRt7Pgw==
=jc9a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--W63c7pdVT9Jje+c+--