On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:42:22PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > However in that case the driver won't be able later to change that value > back to "normal enable" (enable_mask). Consider such flow: > 1. System is going to suspend. > 2. Some regulator has "rstate->disabled" so set_suspend_disable() is > called on it. > 3. The "suspend" value is written to the device for given regulator and > it is stored as "enable" value. > 4. If regulator is enabled during here then the same "suspend" value > will be written. > 5. System is suspended. > 6. After resuming regulator_suspend_finish() calls > _regulator_do_enable() on the regulator... which will write the > "suspend" value because the driver cannot differentiate between this > enable and previous. > I assume that this may not be a problem because: > 1. Regulator will be still turned on (the "suspend" value tells PMIC to > enable the regulator when SoC enables power). > 2. The first disable of regulator may bring back "enable" value back to > normal mode. > Am I thinking here correctly? I'm not entirely sure I follow here. Why would a disable reset the enable value? My understanding is that this is a bitfield with several values, off, on always and on when they system is active. The suspend state is being tracked with a variable so I'm not sure why disabling would reset it? There is a bit of an issue if the regulator is disabled during runtime but enabled in suspend but that's hard to resolve and I'm not sure that it's a realistic issue.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
