Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755333AbZLCNcF (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 08:32:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752957AbZLCNcE (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 08:32:04 -0500 Received: from buzzloop.caiaq.de ([212.112.241.133]:44145 "EHLO buzzloop.caiaq.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752477AbZLCNcC (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 08:32:02 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 14:32:00 +0100 From: Daniel Mack To: Mark Brown Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood , Pierre Ossman , Andrew Morton , Matt Fleming , Adrian Hunter , David Brownell , Russell King , Linus Walleij , Eric Miao , Robert Jarzmik , Cliff Brake , Jarkko Lavinen , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: move regulator handling to core Message-ID: <20091203133200.GX14091@buzzloop.caiaq.de> References: <1259844390-10541-1-git-send-email-daniel@caiaq.de> <20091203130627.GA31254@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20091203131423.GV14091@buzzloop.caiaq.de> <20091203132241.GB31533@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091203132241.GB31533@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1470 Lines: 39 On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:22:41PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote: [...] > > I would expect the power to be killed when the last user stops using it. > > Which should result in the same effect if you only have one host, one > > regulator, and one user. > > Yes, it's always fine in that case (modulo always_on and/or regulators > without power control). Well, it didn't for me and always_on, though, due to the return values I described. > This goes back to the thing about using > regulator_get_exclusive(), the message given was that the MMC drivers > really needed to be able to guarantee that the power would be removed > when that was requested. > > Like I say, if there isn't a *strict* requirement but it's only > desirable (possibly strongly desirable) then your approach is obviously > preferable. The mmci people would need to answer that. To me, the code just looked like a power saving feature. If this driver needs it, the only tweak to my patch to let that particular call site use regulator_get_exclusive, and the core will still do the right thing. For this case, the behaviour should be exactly the same than it currently is, correct? Daniel -- 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/