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
