On Fri, 18 May 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:33:42AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Thu, 3 May 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Bear in mind that the regulator may be shared by other users so even if > > > the regulator is flagged as potentially being able to change status that > > > doesn't mean that it actually can change status. > > > Yes, I think, that's ok. We just need to know, that the card can in > > principle be powered off. We don't need a guarantee, that we can power it > > down at any time, when we think we need it. > > Well, in that case what's the benefit in not just unconditionally > claiming that you can power off and doing runtime PM on the card? I'm using the ability of the regulator to change status as a signal from the user: "yes, this card may be powered off," or "no, keep it on." However, now that I think about it, it is not necessarily a good criterion. It can be, that the regulator can power off, but the card actually shouldn't be. Hm... Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
