From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Duggan Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] input: rmi4: Regulator supply support Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:55:51 -0700 Message-ID: <573A5E07.4010500@synaptics.com> References: <1462596008-21381-1-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> <57312CFB.2040304@synaptics.com> <20160510154904.GI1256@tuxbot> <5733C088.1090700@synaptics.com> <20160512030524.GA1256@tuxbot> <57352536.7040909@synaptics.com> <20160513222948.GD1256@tuxbot> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160513222948.GD1256@tuxbot> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Christopher Heiny , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Tissoires List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On 05/13/2016 03:29 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Thu 12 May 17:52 PDT 2016, Andrew Duggan wrote: > >> On 05/11/2016 08:05 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> On Wed 11 May 16:30 PDT 2016, Andrew Duggan wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Bjorn, >>>> >>>> On 05/10/2016 08:49 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> [..] >>>>> So either we duplicate the regulator support in spi/i2c or we make them >>>>> optional in the core driver. Sounds like you prefer the prior, i.e. v1 >>>>> of my patch. >>>> Yes, after all this I think it makes sense to put regulator support in the >>>> spi/i2c transports like in your v1 patch. I essentially duplicated the irq >>>> handling code in both transports so I would be ok with duplicating regulator >>>> support too. It doesn't seem like that much code. But, if this is too much >>>> duplication we could create some sort of common file and put the common irq >>>> and regulator support functions which could be called in the transports. >>>> Similar to how rmi_2d_sensor.c defines some common functions shared between >>>> rmi_f11 and rmi_f12. >>>> >>> Sounds reasonable, I'm okay with this. Did you have any comments on the >>> implementation I had in v1? >> I tested on a device which has an always on regulators so I didn't add >> anything to device tree for the device. But, it returned 0 when it didn't >> find anything which seems to be the correct behavior. Is there an easy way >> to avoid sleeping for 10ms when there are no regulators? Maybe check if both >> the supplies .consumer pointer is null? >> > I did look at this as well, but unfortunately the regulators does not > come back as NULL, but rather as dummy regulators. > > The delay matches Tpowerup (iirc) from the data sheet, which I assume is > firmware/hardware dependant. Should we provide a knob for that and > default the sleep to 0ms? Making the default 0 and then setting an appropriate time out for devices which need it sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks, Andrew > Regards, > Bjorn