From: Benjamin Bara <bbara93@gmail.com>
To: broonie@kernel.org
Cc: DLG-Adam.Ward.opensource@dm.renesas.com, bbara93@gmail.com,
benjamin.bara@skidata.com, lgirdwood@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mazziesaccount@gmail.com,
support.opensource@diasemi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] regulator: introduce regulator monitoring constraints
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 16:30:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230420143045.541253-1-bbara93@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3eb854e2-8631-4f4e-aa00-d06236967f54@sirena.org.uk>
Thanks for the feedback!
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 at 14:17, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> Are these constraints (ie, board specific limits) or are these more
> just properties of the regulator device? It does feel useful to
> factor out this stuff, but it's not clear to me that these are things
> that should be configured on a per board basis.
These are actually properties of the regulator device. However, the
properties are only "active" if the voltage monitoring is wanted, which
is currently a per-board decision. Not sure if there might be reasons to
not activate it.
> These all sound like things where the regulator device is simply not
> going to support having monitoring enabled when doing the relevant
> actions no matter what situation we're in. If that's the case we
> should just have the regulator driver set things up.
I think this would be feasible if the driver decides whether monitoring
is on or off (which might be a way to go). I think if the decision is
done per-board, it might simplify things to have the whole "should I
turn the monitor off now?" overhead not duplicated in every driver that
supports monitoring. What do you think?
> For the modes might it be clearer to mark a set of modes as not
> supporting monitoring? I think that's the intended effect here.
Yes, that's true. I will change that.
Thanks and best regards,
Benjamin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-20 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-20 10:29 [PATCH RFC 0/2] regulator: dynamic voltage monitoring support Benjamin Bara
2023-04-20 10:29 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] regulator: introduce regulator monitoring constraints Benjamin Bara
2023-04-20 11:33 ` Matti Vaittinen
2023-04-20 14:29 ` Benjamin Bara
2023-04-20 14:50 ` Mark Brown
2023-04-20 12:17 ` Mark Brown
2023-04-20 14:30 ` Benjamin Bara [this message]
2023-04-20 14:37 ` Mark Brown
2023-04-20 14:54 ` Benjamin Bara
2023-04-20 10:29 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] regulator: da9063: disable monitoring while regulator is off Benjamin Bara
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=20230420143045.541253-1-bbara93@gmail.com \
--to=bbara93@gmail.com \
--cc=DLG-Adam.Ward.opensource@dm.renesas.com \
--cc=benjamin.bara@skidata.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mazziesaccount@gmail.com \
--cc=support.opensource@diasemi.com \
/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