Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757149Ab0GNQUx (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:20:53 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:53057 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757007Ab0GNQUv (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:20:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:20:49 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Sundar R IYER Cc: "lrg@slimlogic.co.uk" , "sameo@linux.intel.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , STEricsson_nomadik_linux , Linus WALLEIJ , Bengt JONSSON Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ux500: add ab8500-regulators machine specific data Message-ID: <20100714162048.GA27512@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <20100713145645.GA24626@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20100713150814.GA13767@bnru01.bnr.st.com> <20100713150905.GD24626@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20100713161343.GA25342@bnru01.bnr.st.com> <20100713203852.GA1756@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20100714145053.GA1689@bnru01.bnr.st.com> <20100714145748.GF31073@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20100714153643.GB1689@bnru01.bnr.st.com> <20100714154726.GH31073@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20100714160941.GC1689@bnru01.bnr.st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100714160941.GC1689@bnru01.bnr.st.com> X-Cookie: Too ripped. Gotta go. 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: 1626 Lines: 33 On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:39:42PM +0530, Sundar R IYER wrote: > > For *all* supplies? > Yes. whatever supplies I have listed here all can be enabled/disabled by > their consumers. Sorry to ask, but please help me to understand the > emphasis of the question. There are other supplies, which are controlled > outside the kernel and so I haven't exposed them here. Are you positive that in your system it is sensible for consumers to enable and disable all the supplies? Usually there are restrictions on what can sensibly be done on a given system. For example, disabling the CPU core or RAM supplies from software would normally not work terribly well. > > some of the consumers on a shared supply are hooked up and doing enables > > and disables, for example. What happens when they cause the supply to > > be disabled but another consumer is running? > Again, sorry to ask(this is confusing :() - but isn't this managed by > the core? It is the core's responsibility to effectively disable a > supply when none of the consumers are using it; and to block a disable > even when a single consumer is still using it. Right, but think about the case I'm talking about: if you've only hooked up some but not all of the consumers then the core has no idea about the consumers you didn't hook up. You can only do power control when *all* the consumers needed are configured. -- 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/