On 2012-11-21 10:32, Alex Courbot wrote: >> Ok. I'll need to dig up the conversation > > IIRC it was somewhere around here: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/7/662 > > See the parent messages too. Thanks. >> Did you consider any examples >> of how some driver could handle the error cases? > > For all the (limited) use cases I considered, playing the power-off sequence > when power-on fails just works. If power-off also fails you are potentially in > more trouble though. Maybe we could have another "run" function that does not > stop on errors for handling such cases where you want to "stop everything you > can". If the power-off sequence disables a regulator that was supposed to be enabled by the power-on sequence (but wasn't enabled because of an error), the regulator_disable is still called when the driver runs the power-off sequence, isn't it? Regulator enables and disables are ref counted, and the enables should match the disables. > Failures might be better handled if sequences have some "recovery policy" > about what to do when they fail, as mentioned in the link above. As you > pointed out, the driver might not always know enough about the resources > involved to do the right thing. Yes, I think such recovery policy would be needed. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
