From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Daniel Mack <daniel@caiaq.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>,
Pierre Ossman <pierre@ossman.eu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@nokia.com>,
David Brownell <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@stericsson.com>,
Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>,
Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>,
Cliff Brake <cbrake@bec-systems.com>,
Jarkko Lavinen <jarkko.lavinen@nokia.com>,
linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: move regulator handling to core
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 13:22:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091203132241.GB31533@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091203131423.GV14091@buzzloop.caiaq.de>
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:06:27PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This is historical, they can all be converted to regulator_get_exclusive()
> > so the move to the core (while good) isn't required for this reason.
> Is it? What if you share one regulator for two slots? While this isn't a
> problem I have met in real life, this should still be considered.
I agree, this is a configuration which I have also seen, but there was a
strong insistence that the power off had to function as expected. An
approach which allows shared regulators is generally always preferable
since it copes with a wider range of system designs.
> The problem I _did_ see, however, was a warning when the regulator was
> marked as always_on in its constraints. What happens then is that
> regulator_is_enabled() will always return 1, causing the pxamci code to
...
> Making those drivers claim their regulators exclusively _does_ solve the
> first problem, but not the latter.
Yeah, there's currently an assumption that the constraints will be
suitable for the driver there. A driver that can handle sharing should
always cope here, it's one reason to prefer them.
> > > case MMC_POWER_OFF:
> > > - if(host->vcc &&
> > > - regulator_is_enabled(host->vcc))
> > > - regulator_disable(host->vcc);
> > > + if(mmc->vcc && mmc->vcc_enabled) {
> > > + regulator_disable(mmc->vcc);
> > > + mmc->vcc_enabled = 0;
> > > + }
> > Can the MMC core actually tolerate the MMC power not getting killed when
> > expected? My understanding from previous discussion was that it wasn't
> > able to do so. If it is then conversion to using regulator_get_exclusive()
> > isn't desirable, of course.
> I would expect the power to be killed when the last user stops using it.
> Which should result in the same effect if you only have one host, one
> regulator, and one user.
Yes, it's always fine in that case (modulo always_on and/or regulators
without power control). This goes back to the thing about using
regulator_get_exclusive(), the message given was that the MMC drivers
really needed to be able to guarantee that the power would be removed
when that was requested.
Like I say, if there isn't a *strict* requirement but it's only
desirable (possibly strongly desirable) then your approach is obviously
preferable.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-03 13:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-03 12:46 [PATCH] mmc: move regulator handling to core Daniel Mack
2009-12-03 13:06 ` Mark Brown
2009-12-03 13:14 ` Daniel Mack
2009-12-03 13:22 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2009-12-03 13:32 ` Daniel Mack
2009-12-03 13:40 ` Mark Brown
2009-12-03 13:43 ` Daniel Mack
2009-12-03 14:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2009-12-03 15:09 ` Mark Brown
2009-12-03 14:27 ` Adrian Hunter
2009-12-03 19:20 ` Daniel Mack
2009-12-03 20:12 ` Adrian Hunter
2009-12-04 11:58 ` Daniel Mack
2009-12-12 0:58 ` Daniel Mack
2009-12-14 17:43 ` Madhusudhan
2009-12-15 5:44 ` David Brownell
2010-08-27 19:03 ` Chris Ball
2010-08-28 14:48 ` Linus Walleij
2010-08-29 13:27 ` Mark Brown
2010-08-29 15:30 ` Linus Walleij
2010-08-31 11:07 ` Mark Brown
2010-08-31 12:15 ` Linus Walleij
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=20091203132241.GB31533@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main \
--to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=adrian.hunter@nokia.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cbrake@bec-systems.com \
--cc=daniel@caiaq.de \
--cc=dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=eric.y.miao@gmail.com \
--cc=jarkko.lavinen@nokia.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@stericsson.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lrg@slimlogic.co.uk \
--cc=matt@console-pimps.org \
--cc=pierre@ossman.eu \
--cc=rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=robert.jarzmik@free.fr \
/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