On Thu 04 Dec 13:15 PST 2014, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 11/28/2014 12:16 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:42:41AM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote: [..] > >> The exposure of multiple regulators moves the problem to the > >> devicetree, making sure to map the consumers to the right > >> state/regulator. But it should only be the cpu (in its various forms) > >> that ever consume the active only regulator. > > He said hopefully... :) :) > > > > I think I now have a reasonable picture of what's going on but wanted to > > confirm that what I'm saying above makes sense. > > That's good. Is there any conclusion here? I'm still thinking that > having multiple regulators for the same physical supply is the right > thing to do. > As I said, the only other idea I've come up with will not cut it for the regulators that need more than enable/disable support when going to sleep. Even if we came up with some model of exposing something similar to the suspend state, we would still need to expose it in a way that we can specify which (active/sleep/both) state in the consumer. Hence in practice we end up with exposing multiple regulators in one way or another. I can't help thinking that this would be a problem with the static suspend settings as well; i.e. what is the static suspend state for a regulator that powers a WiFi chip? For me the answer would often be "it's enabled iff the WiFi consumer asks for it" - but maybe it's not supposed to be used for "dynamic" regulators. Nontheless, we have reached conclusions regarding my RFC. So I'll move on and finish up a multi-regulator implementation and we can continue the discussion based on that. Regards, Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
