On 4/6/23 16:43, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 11:00:02AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
ke 5. huhtik. 2023 klo 18.19 Mark Brown (broonie@xxxxxxxxxx) kirjoitti:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 07:18:32AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Or, is it so that no "generic handling" of these errors is to be
expected? Eg, consumers who implement any handling must always be
targeted to a very specific system? My thinking has been that the
device sending the notification knows the severity of the problem and
- for example the REGULATOR_EVENT_REGULATION_OUT is only sent with
such severe problems that consumers can try disabling the regulator,
whereas the _WARN level notifications may not warrant such action. But
again, I don't think we have a specification for this - so this is
just my thinking - which may be off.
Do we actually have practical examples of systems sending warnings that
aren't followed in very short order by more severe errors, notified or
otherwise?
I asked about this from the hardware colleague(s) in Japan. This far
they were not able to provide me a concrete information.
One potential example use-case they mentioned was "rejecting and
re-doing a measurement if regulator warnings are flagged". This sounds
(to me) like using a voltage from a regulator as some measurement
reference or supply, with very strict warning limits. Still, as said, I
did not have a concrete example if/where this is actually implemented -
which means the answer to your question remains still "no".
Yours,
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
