On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 05:35:59PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 10:09 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 05:20:00PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
...
> > Hmm... why not
> >
> > static int i2c_of_probe_get_res(struct device *dev, struct device_node *node,
> > struct i2c_of_probe_data *data)
> > {
> > struct property *prop;
> > int ret;
> >
> > ret = i2c_of_probe_get_regulator(dev, node, data);
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > i2c_of_probe_free_res(data);
> > return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to get regulator supplies from %pOF\n", node);
> > }
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> That would be more churn in the next patch, which introduces another
> error condition requiring the same cleanup.
OK!
...
> > > + /* largest post-power-on pre-reset-deassert delay seen among drivers */
> > > + msleep(500);
> >
> > How would we monitor if any [new] driver wants to use bigger timeout?
>
> The assumption is that the person doing the integration should test for
> this. This prober doesn't get called everywhere. It needs a driver to
> call it, and that driver is written by someone for some specific platform.
> Maybe I should explicitly spell that out in the function description?
> Or even make it a parameter?
>
> Also, having an arbitrarily large number here doesn't help platforms that
> want to minimize boot time. On that front I'm also thinking about whether
> it is possible to do a handover to the actual driver so that the latter
> doesn't have to go through the whole power sequence again.
Yeah, I think the best effort is to have a parameter.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
