Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: Do bulk enables of regulators in parallel
From: Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
In-Reply-To: <1306195960-5897-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <1306195960-5897-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 11:07:22 +0100
Message-ID: <1306231642.3307.1.camel@odin>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1331
Lines: 35

On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 08:12 +0800, Mark Brown wrote:
> In order to reduce the impact of ramp times rather than enabling the
> regulators for a device in series use async tasks to run the actual
> enables. This means that the delays which the enables implement can all
> run in parallel, though it does mean that the order in which the
> supplies come on may be unstable.
> 
> For super bonus fun points if any of the regulators are shared between
> multiple supplies on the same device (as is rather likely) then this
> will test our locking.  Note that in this case we only delay once for
> each physical regulator so the threads shouldn't block each other while
> delaying.
> 
> It'd be even nicer if we could coalesce writes to a shared enable registers
> in PMICs but that's definitely future work, and it may also be useful
> and is certainly more achievable to optimise out the parallelism if none
> of the regulators implement ramp delays.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> ---
> 
> Targetted at 2.6.41 obviously.
> 

Applied.

Thanks

Liam

--
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/