On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:13:55AM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On 03/21/2016 08:11 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:39:46PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> 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. We used to look for the parent at registration time, we didn't look for the children. What you're trying to do here is look for the children; we can do that at registration time. > > this that might occur after late probe if things are built modular? Or > Someone told me once that modules are always a special case :) That doesn't mean we should actively go out of our way to break them. > 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. Regulators also get disabled if some consumer disables them, that can happen separately to late_initcall() and often happens during consumer device probe.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature