On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 05:22:43PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 16.11.2020 16:33, Mark Brown пишет: > > No, you are failing to understand the purpose of this code. To > > reiterate unless the device supports operating with the supply > > physically absent then the driver should not be attempting to use > > regulator_get_optional(). That exists specifically for the case where > The original intention of regulator_get_optional() is clear to me, but > nothing really stops drivers from slightly re-purposing this API, IMO. > Drivers should be free to assume that if regulator isn't defined by > firmware, then it's physically absent if this doesn't break anything. Of > course in some cases it's unsafe to make such assumptions. I think it's > a bit unpractical to artificially limit API usage without a good reason, > i.e. if nothing breaks underneath of a driver. If the supply can be physically absent without breaking anything then this is the intended use case for optional regulators. This is a *very* uncommon. > > Regulators that are present but not described by the firmware are a > > clearly different case to regulators that are not physically there, > > hardware with actually optional regulators will generally require some > > configuration for this case. > I have good news. After spending some more time on trying out different > things, I found that my previous assumption about the fixed-regulator > was wrong, it actually accepts voltage changes, i.e. regulator consumer > doesn't get a error on a voltage-change. This is exactly what is needed > for the OPP core to work properly. To be clear when you set a voltage range you will get the minimum voltage that can be supported within that range on the system given all the other constraints the system has. For fixed voltage regulators or regulators constraints to not change voltage this means that if whatever voltage they are fixed at is in the range requested then the API will report success.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
