On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 10:37 +0800, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. OK, I think I understand it... I sent v2 of the set_suspend_disable patch. Best regards, Krzysztof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |