On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:01:23PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> I noticed the same problem in regulator_suspend_finish() when I was working
> on S2R for Exynos a couple of months ago and had patch [0] on my local tree
> but never found the time to do extensive testing so I never posted it.
Please don't bury patches in the middle of mails where they're hard to
apply if they're useful.
> I see that the check is already in _regulator_enable() so another option
> is to call _regulator_enable() instead of _regulator_do_enable() in
> regulator_suspend_finish().
I'm not entirely sure what "the check" is?
> Trying to enable an already enabled regulator may cause issues so is
> better to skip enabling regulators that were not disabled before suspend.
> mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
> if (rdev->use_count > 0 || rdev->constraints->always_on) {
> - error = _regulator_do_enable(rdev);
> - if (error)
> - ret = error;
> + if (!_regulator_is_enabled(rdev)) {
> + error = _regulator_do_enable(rdev);
> + if (error)
> + ret = error;
> + }
This seems like a better fix or at least a better approach - essentially
the assumption in most of the code is that regulator enables are just
register writes so repeated updates don't have any effect. We may need
a specific per client count here... I've not looked at the code and I
only got back to the UK this morning so I'm not going to start now.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature