On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:15:06AM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > On Monday 16 March 2009, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Devices that need to do things like set voltages are fairly likely to > > > own the regulator but with devices that just need to ensure that they > > > have their supplies enabled it's much more likely that the supplies will > > > be shared. > > > Right. Do you have a model how such shared supplies would > > coexist with the "enabled at boot time" model, and still > > support being disabled? > > The drivers can essentially ignore the physical status of the regulator > when they start, That is, shared supplies should adopt a different model? That approach can't be used with drivers, as for MMC slots, which need to ensure they start with a "power off" state as part of a clean reset/init sequence. Maybe "sharable" should be a regulator constraint flag, so the regulator framework can avoid committing nastiness like allocating multiple consumer handles for them. > It will also work well with a > late_initcall which disables any unreferenced regulators - The $SUBJECT patch will prevent such things from existing. Also, regulator use that kicks in before that particular late_initcall will still see self-inconsistent state in the regulator framework ... of course, $SUBJECT patch (and its predecessors) is all about preventing self-inconsistency. That self-inconsistency doesn't seem to concern you much. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
