Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758056AbZCQSP0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:15:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754608AbZCQSPL (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:15:11 -0400 Received: from smtp127.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.65.186]:24497 "HELO smtp127.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753539AbZCQSPJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:15:09 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=GnhJYoGsLXoBGmD85KjY7Ezf62v4bry3wWRMF2irxsZ8w1GQSVCb+kG+hUkTk86NesHxxiz0Bd+kB1JnWQFrFt4upR43LqnLqNa9ACS4KGE+oRPfeXJLy2yBEQQyE0L4FRju3EAqPkNxT994U6mmbxlIL+4hQ0wBWCq/6gIV8NI= ; X-YMail-OSG: zQuBNpYVM1l6LvjTHihVpKJCT4Ta1xhthpYS725d1uyzmD5xVwCXFM_VOcr8TdcXuLSBxf3BpFeevoFwaCoP77hpspY9yBPmqVhLsad_7GiZkCV72N97BOiNQ2bUtqub9anKiUQe3oVcdz0dMny80yACmAuuBtCYo8fd2EfcePK6mSJr0DvNrErdR3GJ X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: David Brownell To: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.29-rc8 regulator-next] regulator: init fixes (v4) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:15:06 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Liam Girdwood , lkml , OMAP References: <200903111743.34708.david-b@pacbell.net> <200903142105.29382.david-b@pacbell.net> <20090316215422.GA6433@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20090316215422.GA6433@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903171115.06685.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1420 Lines: 37 On Monday 16 March 2009, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:05:29PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > > was called. It's not exactly hard to check if it was enabled, then > > act accordingly, in the typical "single consumer of the regulator" > > case. > > How typical that is depends very much on the devices you're looking at. I'd have said "systems you're looking at" ... but so long as the boot_on flag exists, then this issue can appear with absolutely any regulator, used for anything. The basic issue addressed by $SUBJECT patch just restores internal consistency to the framework, in the face of such flags (or equivalent actions by the boot loader). > Devices that need to do things like set voltages are fairly likely to > own the regulator but with devices that just need to ensure that they > have their supplies enabled it's much more likely that the supplies will > be shared. Right. Do you have a model how such shared supplies would coexist with the "enabled at boot time" model, and still support being disabled? My first thought is that the system designer should avoid such boot_on modes. But that's not always going to work. - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/