Hi,
On 18-01-15 13:35, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 03:28:39PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
On 17-01-15 14:14, Mark Brown wrote:
Following your argument to the logical conclusion means we can never
turn any regualtor off - we always have the risk that there's another
shared user which is going to get a power bounce if we power down. More
directly we'll also get people complaining that we're burning power
pointlessly on their systems for devices they've not even got drivers
enabled for. This powering down is something there's been user demand
for.
Right, note I'm only advocating to not turn off regulators marked as
regulator-boot-on. I would expect any regulator to have such a
marking to have at least one user with an actual driver. If people decide
to not build that driver, and then complain we can simply tell them to
build the driver ...
Right, but that's not what regulator-boot-on actually means (and I'm not
sure why you would think it would TBH)
Well, the meaning of regulator-boot-on is not clearly defined really, to
begin we need with fixing that, currently all the bindings file says is:
- regulator-boot-on: bootloader/firmware enabled regulator
One could easily argue that the bootloader likely has a good reason to turn
the regulator on, and that unless there is a specific driver which claims
the regulator and thus knows what to do with it it is best left alone ...
so this will disrupt existing
users who are expecting the current behaviour. We could try adding a
new property but it doesn't feel very idiomatic for DT which isn't very
nice.
Telling people not to build the driver doesn't in general work any
better than telling them to build it in I fear, it seems like it's
essentially just shuffling things around so people have to change their
kernel config in a different way to avoid issues.
Regards,
Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
