From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0EAC433DF for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB5C21548 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:57:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="hL6Rvzwa" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725964AbgFQL5Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jun 2020 07:57:25 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35376 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726044AbgFQL5Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jun 2020 07:57:24 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-x242.google.com (mail-oi1-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::242]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 943C4C061755 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x242.google.com with SMTP id x202so1483062oix.11 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:57:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/TAhtBD0JZB3OeqVg4Sg/t5NA/0YJ+SzdMDki1DJcps=; b=hL6Rvzwasvh8JclW23b05+UHwnW8NXnEYh6K8YFuMwRssrzpSI8d711InpIaF8o3V9 Ln6kuk4PFZ7ujW3Nezxl3SkzV3Z1c0GLtwSQSDZxWbHp3SIL/haBQ4IKFpicUq78HWUV MSu7BfIbtxs/18Dtx/4UpOw7o6ttX/Sr3TRkZHw7zsYtoPsoRuxy6WfZoBDDOtX5Gakg KcO8q5HlWW2YWC43IFOx+6+Brv9my73D60JX0YxYB0m0CnWTGNLAyJFp5i/GqMYbDjo4 iWQc249KmUImK3L5VpIScQn+PzrRKnK4RkuKeo95onNnXtUVJmAQmSmr4umhAisyDpo2 O4tg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/TAhtBD0JZB3OeqVg4Sg/t5NA/0YJ+SzdMDki1DJcps=; b=UTWX8hbVkHkD82Ser6H8ocDvHT8yfujPmXwBUmEGUTdyU6FfHeUe/XVaaW4+fnzUhk 6QDPqC4aeC/pvIgbRuOmRy6EU7ph5ZHR+YBxO/Bqu7cVNhdLxEuxoqXRoT8GDcm2wDKM jhFvQTjPKDkFKTCed04N4tXQlLELt2lZ1g9kTgzqkLCft6G1h37kDdbM2ie51fO6zgVY 4vk+wjcNUKfJgHkkOPp3bHKAbOKtc6qwXtm1rjZUi6G/TsRvrIXdIamR6K0d2ryxTPnr JPVYGi40cPl2xiBkcJZs2WAiZJJQFACXupM6Sh3sUbglYHXHIkPzs5HxOhq4Z/C+4+sL uLCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533LUH9O6RwgJs1QTic5UGzFMw0P7GebakdKr/6Z+SLImOScX28+ BaL/EmONwbhFGyt8AfNZ2jBU/VXNvaTHGv2x1kB8+Grrd7Ak5DBW X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyi4phMmweTWv3U8Zb8tbN3nMTf9bjdjul0rHspdSGtdhbOiqjUK3aUeI32cQLZPgZ2xIOZMMLiXTJn4sjP+00= X-Received: by 2002:aca:c391:: with SMTP id t139mr7342114oif.166.1592395043660; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:57:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200602100924.26256-1-sumit.semwal@linaro.org> <20200602100924.26256-5-sumit.semwal@linaro.org> <20200602113241.GE5684@sirena.org.uk> <20200602122554.GG5684@sirena.org.uk> <20200617114721.GD4613@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20200617114721.GD4613@sirena.org.uk> From: Sumit Semwal Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 17:27:12 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] regulator: qcom: Add labibb driver To: Mark Brown Cc: agross@kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson , lgirdwood@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, Nisha Kumari , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, LKML , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kgunda@codeaurora.org, Rajendra Nayak Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 17:17, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:12:35PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > > > I understand from a pure regulators' correctness point of view, > > ENABLE_CTL should be the one checked there, so I can change the patch > > as you suggested, but there seems to be some performance penalty > > there. > > I thought the goal was to have the performance penalty to ensure that > the regulator had actually started? IMHO, with the poll_enabled_time mechanism added, we would not need to wait for the full enabled_time time for the regulator to get enabled, but we could poll (and potentially know earlier) if the regulator is enabled. The performance penalty I was talking, is about how should we check if the regulator is really enabled or not - via reading the STATUS1 register, which seems to tell the status a bit faster, or via reading the ENABLE_CTL register which we also use to enable/disable the regulator, but which seems to be slower in updating the status. > > > > > The WARN_ON? This was suggested by Bjorn to catch the case where the > > > > DT binding for a PMIC instantiates only one of the regulators. > > > > No, this whole loop - why this whole match and get child stuff? > > > This loop mechanism is what I saw in the other qcom regulators > > upstream, so thought it was an acceptable way. > > For the two children nodes, do you recommend another mechanism to get > > and validate both nodes? > > I don't understand what you mean by "two children nodes" here? The two 'lab' and 'ibb' regulator nodes that are part of the labibb node. Best, Sumit.