Hi Krzysztof,
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 12:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 04/04/2024 09:13, Anand Moon wrote:
> > Use devm_regulator_bulk_get_enable() instead of open coded
> > 'devm_regulator_get(), regulator_enable(), regulator_disable().
>
> I fail to see how did you replace open-coded suspend/resume paths.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > V2: no changes, did not find any regression in pm suspend/resume.
>
> No, that's not equivalent code. No explanation in commit msg.
>
> You already got comments on this and nothing improved. You just entirely
> ignored received comments. That's not how it works.
>
> I don't think you understand the code and Linux driver model. This patch
> repeats several previous attempts with similar issues: no logic behind a
> change.
>
> NAK.
devm_regulator_get_enable and devm_regulator_bulk_get_enable
both remove the dependency from the driver to handle the regulator_enabled
and regulator_disabled. ie this removes the regulator from the driver structure.
Since these functions set devm_add_action to disable the regulator when the
resource is not used.
ret = devm_add_action(dev, devm_regulator_bulk_disable, devres);
if (!ret)
return 0;
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
if you feel it's incorrect, I will drop this patch..
Thanks
-Anand
