From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans de Goede Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] ARM: mvebu: Armada 385 GP: Add regulators to the SATA port Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 20:13:36 +0100 Message-ID: <54B962E0.9060504@redhat.com> References: <1421330978-9694-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <1421330978-9694-5-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <54B8C933.7020502@redhat.com> <54B8D97B.3090908@free-electrons.com> <54B8E38A.6020709@redhat.com> <20150116123705.GM3043@sirena.org.uk> <54B91FB4.5080707@free-electrons.com> <20150116153451.GA3856@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150116153451.GA3856@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown , Gregory CLEMENT Cc: Tejun Heo , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, =?windows-1252?Q?Antoine_T=E9nart?= , Liam Girdwood , Thomas Petazzoni , Ezequiel Garcia , Maxime Ripard , Boris BREZILLON , Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Sebastian Hesselbarth , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Lior Amsalem , Tawfik Bayouk , Nadav Haklai , Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 16-01-15 16:34, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 03:27:00PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: >> On 16/01/2015 13:37, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> regulator-always-on is a bit fuzzy for suspend, if the regulator has >>> suspend control it'll kick in - it's really about the Linux refcounting >>> while it's running. What's more concerning here is that the quick >>> sample of the regulators flagged as always on like the above that I >>> looked at in the patch don't seem to have any enable control in the DT >>> so this will have absolutely no effect. > >> Actually the reg_sata[0-4] are controlled by gpio, so there is a mean >> to enable/disable them. For the reg_5v_sata[0-4] and reg_12v_sata[0-4] >> they depend on their respective reg_sata and I just propagated the >> regulator-always-on, this was maybe a mistake. > > It certainly makes everything confusing if you have control related > stuff on regulators that are not directly controllable. > >>>> It is probably a good idea to use regulator-boot-on and >>>> then test things this way, and if that works use >>>> regulator-boot-on. > >>> No, it's unlikely that boot-on makes sense here - it's there for cases >>> where we can't read back the hardware state at power on. Generally >>> drivers should work regardless of the initial state of the regulator >>> (and modular drivers will actually break if they try to rely on boot-on >>> since we clean up unused regulators at boot). > >> As pointed by Hans my concern here was be sure that during boot the disk >> are not power off. In this case which property would be accurate? > > None, the core won't do anything with the regulator until the end of > init anyway. That us simply not true, see my other mail gpio enabled regulators will be turned off *at register time* unless they have regulator-boot-on set. Regards, Hans