From: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>
Cc: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwmon: chipcap2: disable sensor if request ready irq fails
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 22:48:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f6034baa-3a1c-4bd3-8cf2-cd197e8a0945@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eefbeda1-8c09-4b57-83dc-30be9966de2b@roeck-us.net>
On 12/08/2024 22:08, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 8/12/24 12:59, Javier Carrasco wrote:
>> On 12/08/2024 18:49, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 8/12/24 08:43, Javier Carrasco wrote:
>>>> This check is carried out after getting the regulator, and the device
>>>> can be disabled if an error occurs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do not see a possible path for a call to cc2_enable() at this point,
>>> meaning the regulator won't ever be enabled. Please provide a better
>>> explanation why this patch would be necessary.
>>>
>>> Guenter
>>>
>>
>> Hi Guenter,
>>
>> this patch enforces the state where the dedicated regulator is disabled,
>> no matter what the history of the regulator was. If a previous
>> regulator_disable() failed, it would still be desirable that the
>> regulator gets disabled the next time the driver is probed (i.e. a new
>> attempt to disable it on failure).
>> cc2_disable() checks first if the regulator is enabled to avoid any
>> imbalance.
>>
>
> That is very theoretic. Sorry, I am not going to accept this patch.
>
> Guenter
>
I get your point, but given that this device requires a dedicated
regulator, I believe it makes sense that it tries to disable it whenever
possible if it's not going to be used. I think that makes more sense
that just returning an error value without even making sure that de
regulator was disabled, doesn't it?
Of course this is not a killer feature, and I don't want to make you
waste much time with it. But I think the dedicated regulator should be
shut down in all error paths, whatever status it had before.
If that does not sound convincing, then I won't argue any longer. Please
take a look at the first patch of the series in any case, which is not a
killer feature either, but cleaner than the current implementation.
Thanks and best regards,
Javier Carrasco
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-12 20:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-12 15:43 [PATCH 0/2] hwmon: chipcap2: small improvements in probe function Javier Carrasco
2024-08-12 15:43 ` [PATCH 1/2] hwmon: chipcap2: return dev_err_probe if get regulator fails Javier Carrasco
2024-08-12 15:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] hwmon: chipcap2: disable sensor if request ready irq fails Javier Carrasco
2024-08-12 16:49 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-08-12 19:59 ` Javier Carrasco
2024-08-12 20:08 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-08-12 20:48 ` Javier Carrasco [this message]
2024-08-12 21:26 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-08-12 22:04 ` Javier Carrasco
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f6034baa-3a1c-4bd3-8cf2-cd197e8a0945@gmail.com \
--to=javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com \
--cc=jdelvare@suse.com \
--cc=linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox