Hi,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:16 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 8:38 PM Jeff LaBundy <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -37,13 +38,34 @@ static int goodix_i2c_hid_power_up(struct i2chid_ops *ops)
> > > container_of(ops, struct i2c_hid_of_goodix, ops);
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > - ret = regulator_enable(ihid_goodix->vdd);
> > > - if (ret)
> > > - return ret;
> > > -
> > > - ret = regulator_enable(ihid_goodix->vddio);
> > > - if (ret)
> > > - return ret;
> > > + /*
> > > + * This is to ensure that the reset GPIO will be asserted and the
> > > + * regulators will be enabled for all cases.
> > > + */
> > > + if (ihid_goodix->powered_in_suspend) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * This is not mandatory, but we assert reset here (instead of
> > > + * in power-down) to ensure that the device will have a clean
> > > + * state later on just like the normal scenarios would have.
> > > + *
> > > + * Also, since the regulators were not disabled in power-down,
> > > + * we don't need to enable them here.
> > > + */
> > > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(ihid_goodix->reset_gpio, 1);
> > > + } else {
> > > + /*
> > > + * In this case, the reset is already asserted (either in
> > > + * probe or power-down).
> > > + * All we need is to enable the regulators.
> > > + */
> > > + ret = regulator_enable(ihid_goodix->vdd);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = regulator_enable(ihid_goodix->vddio);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> >
> > Please let me know in case I have misunderstood, but I don't see a need
> > to change the regulator_enable/disable() logic if this property is set.
> > If the regulators are truly always-on, the regulator core already knows
> > what to do and we should not duplicate that logic here.
Your understanding is totally right, let me restore that in the next
revision. Thanks!
Regards,
Fei
> >
> > Based on the alleged silicon erratum discussed in patch [1/2], it seems
> > we only want to control the behavior of the reset GPIO. Therefore, only
> > the calls to gpiod_set_value_cansleep() should be affected and the name
> > of the property updated to reflect what it's actually doing.
>
> This would be OK w/ me.
