From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751743AbaKZT5p (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:57:45 -0500 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:56977 "EHLO relay1.mentorg.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750780AbaKZT5o (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:57:44 -0500 Message-ID: <547630AD.1010108@mentor.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:57:33 +0200 From: Vladimir Zapolskiy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown CC: Liam Girdwood , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Subject: Re: Question about fixed regulator DT properties References: <546B5EF9.3080102@mentor.com> <546CAB49.8030103@mentor.com> <20141125121749.GV7712@sirena.org.uk> <54760D6A.9080306@mentor.com> <20141126175304.GM7712@sirena.org.uk> <5476266E.9040901@mentor.com> <20141126192021.GU7712@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20141126192021.GU7712@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.76] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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