From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Javier Martinez Canillas Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] regulator: max77686: Add suspend disable for some LDOs Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:51:46 +0100 Message-ID: <5450C6C2.2050506@collabora.co.uk> References: <1414411911-5539-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <1414411911-5539-4-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <20141028223121.GH18557@sirena.org.uk> <1414574413.18868.6.camel@AMDC1943> <20141029100142.GR18557@sirena.org.uk> <1414577934.18868.7.camel@AMDC1943> <20141029103140.GY18557@sirena.org.uk> <1414579442.18868.13.camel@AMDC1943> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1414579442.18868.13.camel@AMDC1943> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Mark Brown Cc: Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Dooks , Kukjin Kim , Russell King , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Kyungmin Park , Marek Szyprowski , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Chanwoo Choi List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org Hello Krzysztof, On 10/29/2014 11:44 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On =C5=9Bro, 2014-10-29 at 10:31 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:18:54AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> > On =C5=9Bro, 2014-10-29 at 10:01 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: >>=20 >> > > No, this isn't suspend enable control - this is normal, standard= enable >> > > control and the device has no suspend enable control. >>=20 >> > You mean that for such regulator the driver shouldn't implement >> > suspend_enable()? >>=20 >> Yes, if there is no separate control of suspend mode in hardware the= n of >> course the driver shouldn't implement operations for things it doesn= 't >> have. >=20 > Oh, thanks! I'll send fixed patch. >=20 > This means that probably the max77802 ("mirrored" driver) should be > fixed... >=20 Indeed, I had the same confusion that you had. Just to avoid duplicatin= g work, do you want me to send a fix or are you going to include one on your se= ries? > Best regards, > Krzysztof >=20 >=20 Best regards, Javier From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk (Javier Martinez Canillas) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:51:46 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v5 3/4] regulator: max77686: Add suspend disable for some LDOs In-Reply-To: <1414579442.18868.13.camel@AMDC1943> References: <1414411911-5539-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <1414411911-5539-4-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <20141028223121.GH18557@sirena.org.uk> <1414574413.18868.6.camel@AMDC1943> <20141029100142.GR18557@sirena.org.uk> <1414577934.18868.7.camel@AMDC1943> <20141029103140.GY18557@sirena.org.uk> <1414579442.18868.13.camel@AMDC1943> Message-ID: <5450C6C2.2050506@collabora.co.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello Krzysztof, On 10/29/2014 11:44 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On ?ro, 2014-10-29 at 10:31 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:18:54AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> > On ?ro, 2014-10-29 at 10:01 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: >> >> > > No, this isn't suspend enable control - this is normal, standard enable >> > > control and the device has no suspend enable control. >> >> > You mean that for such regulator the driver shouldn't implement >> > suspend_enable()? >> >> Yes, if there is no separate control of suspend mode in hardware then of >> course the driver shouldn't implement operations for things it doesn't >> have. > > Oh, thanks! I'll send fixed patch. > > This means that probably the max77802 ("mirrored" driver) should be > fixed... > Indeed, I had the same confusion that you had. Just to avoid duplicating work, do you want me to send a fix or are you going to include one on your series? > Best regards, > Krzysztof > > Best regards, Javier