On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:06:36AM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Thu 04 Dec 13:15 PST 2014, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 11/28/2014 12:16 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > 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. I'm still not finding it easy to find this tasteful. > 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. Now I'm confused again. I thought entry and exit was all done separately so it was just about saying what should happen if the device were to idle? > 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. That's what should happen, we just don't currently really support doing this configuration dynamically (practically speaking I suspect anyone who cares just doesn't have a suspend mode for affected regulators at the minute).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
