On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 16:57, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 4:53 PM Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 7/25/2022 5:49 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > As of commit 5451781dadf8 ("regulator: core: Only count load for > > > enabled consumers"), a load isn't counted for a disabled > > > regulator. That means all the code in the DSI driver to specify and > > > set loads before disabling a regulator is not actually doing anything > > > useful. Let's remove it. > > > > > > It should be noted that all of the loads set that were being specified > > > were pointless noise anyway. The only use for this number is to pick > > > between low power and high power modes of regulators. Regulators > > > appear to do this changeover at loads on the order of 10000 uA. You > > > would a lot of clients of the same rail for that 100 uA number to > > > > I guess you meant "you would need a lot of clients" > > Yeah, sorry. :( I'll fix it up if I need a v3. > > > > > @@ -259,15 +259,7 @@ static inline struct msm_dsi_host *to_msm_dsi_host(struct mipi_dsi_host *host) > > > static void dsi_host_regulator_disable(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host) > > > { > > It seems like now we can drop this function dsi_host_regulator_disable() > > entirely and just call regulator_bulk_disable() ? > > Sure, if you want. One could still argue that it provides a tiny bit > of abstraction and avoids the caller from having to know where to find > the number of regulators and all that, but I can go either way. Is > this worth a v3, do you think? If so, I might tack it on at the end of > the series. I'd say, drop it. Having extra single-call wrappers doesn't seem to add a lot. > > Note that I say "v3" because I actually included this patch in a > larger series and called that series "v2" [1]. > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220726173824.1166873-1-dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- With best wishes Dmitry