On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 04:28:37PM +0000, Biju Das wrote: > > So, it'll doubtless not be a surprise that I'm not thrilled with this - it's basically just > > punching a hole straight through all the locking and reference counting in a way that's just > > begging for abuse. At the very least we should have a check for exclusive access in there. > Do you mean exclusive access by means of spinlock to avoid race between enable/disable()? > If that is the case No, I mean regulator_get_exclusive(), this clearly can't work if there's more than one consumer. > > Also it's not sure about that name, if we were doing this it should be more describing the effect > What about the name regulator_hardware_enable() to make it generic?? Possibly. > > on the regulator rather than this happening to be done via a register write (this should also work > > for GPIOs...). > Do you mean to make it generic, so that it works for both regmap based enable/disable() as well as > gpio based enable()/disable()?? That too, I was mainly thinking about the name here though.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
