On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:40:07PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:14:20AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > > I don't understand this. Why is this called _no_delay() and why don't > > we want to delay when applying constraints? We don't want to ever be in > > a position where we think a supply is enabled but it has in fact not > > finished ramping, and of course enable() may in fact be blocking anyway. > I tried not to modify the current behaviour of the core driver for > non-gpio regulators. Before this patch only ops->enable() was called > which also didn't have a delay. So I seperated the non-delay enable > function to have the same behaviour for normal regulators. No, that's not good. The fact that it wasn't applying delays is going to be a bug - it should've been doing that. > Also the constraints are applied when registering a new regulator. For > "boot-on" we should not delay because this regulator is already on by > definition. But I am not sure what to do with always-on regulators? I'd just always apply a delay, it's simpler and more robust.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature