On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 02:53:28PM +0100, Kory Maincent wrote: > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yup, indeed. That said I am wondering if it's safer to just configure > > the constraint in the hardware rather than the currently requested > > limit, considering what might happen in the case where there's multiple > > consumers that have only been partially updated. If the hardware limits > > or shuts down rather than warning it'll blow up badly so it might be > > better to be conservative. Unfortunately we don't distinguish in the > > ops. Possibly it should be a policy thing even but then that's better > > at runtime... > Indeed, should we begin without it and see later if we add it? I think so. > We could simply add an event for now: > regulator_notifier_call_chain(rdev, REGULATOR_EVENT_OVER_CURRENT, NULL); We should (TBH I thought that was there already) but part of the problem is that a bunch of the hardware will shut down or otherwise do something that we might not want when it hits the limit. Again something that could be addressed separately/incrementally.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
