On 03/21/2016 09:13 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > [adding Bjorn Andersson who is the author of commit 6261b06de565] > I got a user invalid error when sending to the email address that Bjorn used in that commit, so I'm re-sending to his latest address. Sorry for the spam. Bjorn, here is the email archive in case you need more context: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/20/277 > Hello Mark, > > Thanks a lot for your feedback. > > On 03/21/2016 08:11 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:39:46PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately, that changed the behavior of the regulator core since now a >>> parent supply with a child regulator marked as always-on, won't be enabled >>> unless a client driver attempts to get the child regulator during boot. >> >>> This patch makes the unresolved parent supplies to be looked up before the >>> regulators late cleanup, so those with a child marked as always on will be >>> enabled regardless if a driver attempted to get the child regulator or not. >> >> This doesn't make much sense to me as a fix - it feels like we're doing >> a fragile hack. Surely it's better to do this as we register the >> devices, that way we're also protected against any similar issues with > > Sorry, not sure if I understood correctly. You mean to do it when the > drivers register the regulators, so at regulator_register() ? > > That's basically what was done before Bjorn's patch but that doesn't > handle the case of out of order registration when having circular > dependencies between regulators. > >> this that might occur after late probe if things are built modular? Or > > Someone told me once that modules are always a special case :) > >> is there a strong reason for doing this only at late_initcall? >> > > The reason why I did in late_initcall / regulator_init_complete is that > the problem for me is that unused regulators are disabled on cleanup but > parents whose childrens are marked as always on should be keep enabled. > > But these are disabled anyways just because the regulator core didn't know > about that dependency. So doing it before the late cleanup sounded like a > good solution for me. > > Now if you think that's a hack and have another approach in mind, then I'll > gladly try to implement it instead, if you could please elaborate on that. > Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html