On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:01:15PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > On 08.10.2019 13:50, Mark Brown wrote: > > This then means that for users that might legitimately enable and > > disable regulators that need to be constrained are forced to change the > > voltage when they enable the regualtors in order to have their > > constraints take effect which seems bad. I'd rather change the the > > cpufreq consumers to either not do the enable (since there really should > > be an always-on constraint this should be redundant, we might need to > > fix the core to take account of their settings though I think we lost > > that) or to set the voltage to whatever they need prior to doing their > > first enable, that seems more robust. > Well, I'm open for other ways of fixing this issue. Calling enable on > always-on regulator imho should not change its rate... Yes, although there is the whole "don't touch things until a consumer tells us to" thing going on. I had expected that this was kicking in because we weren't paying attention to the constraints of disabled regulators but I can't see the code implementing that any more so I guess we removed it at some point (it was always debatable).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
