From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: move regulator handling to core Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:03:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20100827190306.GB20407@void.printf.net> References: <1259844390-10541-1-git-send-email-daniel@caiaq.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1259844390-10541-1-git-send-email-daniel@caiaq.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Mack Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood , Pierre Ossman , Andrew Morton , Matt Fleming , Adrian Hunter , David Brownell , Russell King , Linus Walleij , Eric Miao , Robert Jarzmik , Cliff Brake , Jarkko Lavinen , Madhusudhan , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org Hi Daniel, On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:46:30PM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote: > At the moment, regulator operations are done from individual mmc host > drivers. This is a problem because the regulators are not claimed > exclusively but the mmc core enables and disables them according to the > return value of regulator_is_enabled(). That can lead to a number of > problems and warnings when regulators are shared among multiple > consumers or if regulators are marked as 'always_on'. > > Fix this by moving the some logic to the core, and put the regulator > reference to the mmc_host struct and let it do its own supply state > tracking so that the reference counting in the regulator won't get > confused. Looks like this patch got dropped because of the missing modifications to arch/arm/mach-omap2/mmc-twl4030.c. Are we still interested in the patch otherwise, and can anyone help with that? -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child