Hi Mark, On Wednesday 26 Oct 2016 12:51:49 Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 02:27:23PM +0300, Todor Tomov wrote: > > And using Mark Brown's correct address... > > This is an *enormous* e-mail quoted to multiple levels with top posting > and very little editing which makes it incredibly hard to find any > relevant content. > > > >> I believe it should be an API guarantee, otherwise many drivers using > > >> the bulk API would break. Mark, could you please comment on that ? > > > > > > Ok, let's wait for a response from Mark. > > Why would this be guaranteed by the API given that it's not documented > and why would many drivers break? It's fairly rare for devices other > than SoCs to have strict power on sequencing requirements as it is hard > to achieve in practical systems. I'm surprised, I've always considered the bulk regulator API as guaranteeing sequencing, and have written quite a few drivers with that assumption. If that's not correct then I'll have to switch them back to manual regulator handling. Is there a reason why the API shouldn't guarantee that regulators are powered on in the order listed, and powered off in the reverse order ? Looking at the implementation that's already the case for regulator_bulk_disable(), but regulator_bulk_enable() uses async scheduling so doesn't guarantee ordering. I wonder whether a synchronous version of regulator_bulk_enable() would be useful. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
