On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 01:43:07PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It feels like we should just make a devm_ version of regulator_enable(). > > Or potentially this is more complicated than it seems, but in that case > > probably adding devm_add_action_or_reset() is more complicated than it > > seems as well. > It has been a while since that was last proposed. At the time the > counter argument was that you should almost always be doing some form > of PM and hence the regulator shouldn't have the same lifetime as the > driver. Reality is that a lot of simple drivers either don't do > PM or have elected to not turn the regulator off so as to retain state > etc. Same issue as before - I fear it's far too error prone in conjunction with runtime PM, and if the driver really is just doing an enable and disable at probe and remove then that seems fairly trivial anyway. I am constantly finding abuses of things like regulator_get_optional() (which we do actually need) in drivers and it's not like I can review all the users, I don't have much confidence in this stuff especially when practically speaking few regulators ever change state at runtime so issues don't manifest so often.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
