Hi, On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It's arguable either way - you could say that the client gets to specify > a safe range at all times or you could say that the machine constraints > should cover all cases where the hardware is idling. Of course RPMh > is missing anything like the machine constraints (as we can see from all > the fixing up of undesirable hard coding we have to do) so it's kind of > pushed towards the first case. OK, fair enough. If others all agree that it's OK to make requests about the voltage of a disabled regulator then I won't stand in the way. I guess it does call into question the whole idea of caching / not sending the voltage until the first enable because it means there's no way for the client to use this feature until they've enabled / disabled the regulator once. If you think of it as invalid to adjust the voltage of a disabled regulator then the caching argument is super clean, but once you say that you should normally be able to do it it feels more like a hacky workaround. ...but I suppose that's what we've got to live with... -Doug -- 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
