From: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about fixed regulator DT properties
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:57:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <547630AD.1010108@mentor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141126192021.GU7712@sirena.org.uk>
On 26.11.2014 21:20, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 09:13:50PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>
>> If I want to enable a fixed regulator (not controlled by
>> bootloader/firmware) by Linux on boot or when fixed.ko module is bound,
>> shall I specify the same "regulator-boot-on" property? At least this is
>> the practical way to enable a fixed and/or gpio regulator right now, but
>> is it correct?
>
> It depends what you're trying to accomplish by doing this.
If "regulator-boot-on" is specified and the regulator is enabled by
bootloader/firmware, then the kernel re-enables it.
If "regulator-boot-on" is specified and the regulator is untouched by
bootloader/firmware, then the kernel simply enables it.
As far as I understand the latter side-effect is exploited on quite many
ARM boards, when there is no defined regulator consumer, but I agree
that it looks hackish. My assumption is that probably fixed regulator
logic around "regulator-boot-on" property should be changed, so that the
kernel will not attempt to physically re-enable/enable the
"regulator-boot-on" regulator at all, then misusage of the property
should gone forced by necessity of finding a proper regulator consumer.
>> Or should the regulator always be enabled externally (assuming
>> "regulator-always-on" is omitted) after registration independently on
>> "regulator-boot-on" property?
>
> Best practice is that there should be a consumer which keeps the
> regulator enabled whenever it is required. There should normally be
> little use for boot-on, it's mostly there to ease handover from the
> bootloader in cases where we can't read the hardware state - if you're
> not sure if you should use it the chances are you shouldn't.
>
Right, thank you for explanation.
--
With best wishes,
Vladimir
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-26 19:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-18 15:00 Question about Vladimir Zapolskiy
2014-11-19 14:38 ` Question about fixed regulator DT properties Vladimir Zapolskiy
2014-11-25 12:17 ` Mark Brown
2014-11-26 17:27 ` Vladimir Zapolskiy
2014-11-26 17:53 ` Mark Brown
2014-11-26 19:13 ` Vladimir Zapolskiy
2014-11-26 19:20 ` Mark Brown
2014-11-26 19:57 ` Vladimir Zapolskiy [this message]
2014-11-26 20:36 ` Mark Brown
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=547630AD.1010108@mentor.com \
--to=vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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