Mark, On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:21:21PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> It looks as if "ena_gpio_state" is not quite what I thought it was and >> I think is not actually consistent in the regulator framework itself. >> In _regulator_do_enable() and _regulator_do_disable() is clear that >> ena_gpio_state is 1 when an "rdev" is enabled and 0 when the "rdev" is >> disabled. That was my assumption. It's also clear in >> _regulator_is_enabled(). > >> ...but then I looked in regulator_register(). There you can see that >> ena_gpio_state could be set to 1 if you've got an active low GPIO that >> is disabled at boot. That totally throws my logic for a loop. Also >> with my patch the reference counting will be all messed up for active >> high / boot on regulators. :( > > Isn't that just a bug in the registration code? I'd not be entirely > surprised if that were the case. Yes, I'm pretty sure that's the case too and that's what I've assumed in V2 of the patch that I sent up yesterday. In my testing is caused no problems, but of course my testing of my previous version also showed no problems on my particular boards until I found the right place to put printouts to show that the internal state was a bit confused... -Doug -- 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