From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Collins Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] regulator: core: If consumers don't call regulator_set_load() assume max Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 13:58:11 -0700 Message-ID: <037cd5e2-0d3b-c20f-a444-99087b86706b@codeaurora.org> References: <20180814170617.100087-1-dianders@chromium.org> <20180814170617.100087-2-dianders@chromium.org> <20180815111318.GY2414@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson , Mark Brown Cc: linux-arm-msm , Bjorn Andersson , Stephen Boyd , Liam Girdwood , LKML List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Hello Doug, On 08/16/2018 01:07 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > I'll work on either adding more regulator_set_load() calls to clients > or perhaps disabling the "regulator-allow-set-load" for a bunch of > rails. David: presumably if we have a rail that we never need to be > on-and-in-low-power-mode can just be left in high power mode all the > time? There should be no advantage of being in low power mode for a > regulator that is off, right? Generally speaking, yes, that is true on both points. The only caveat is that there could be a minor power penalty if APPS votes for OFF+HPM and a non-HLOS processor votes for ON+LPM for the same regulator. This would lead to an aggregated state of ON+HPM when only ON+LPM is really needed. Take care, David -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project