From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752057AbcFWMCP (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:02:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:33975 "EHLO mail-pf0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750926AbcFWMCO (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:02:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: introduce boot protection flag To: Mark Brown References: <1462777508-24934-1-git-send-email-pingbo.wen@linaro.org> <20160608171608.GM7510@sirena.org.uk> <57614479.1060708@linaro.org> <20160615133255.GZ2282@sirena.org.uk> <57636FC1.3040607@linaro.org> <20160617114235.GK26099@sirena.org.uk> Cc: pingbo.wen@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, stephen.boyd@linaro.org From: Pingbo Wen Message-ID: <576BCFB9.2040503@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:02:01 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160617114235.GK26099@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Mark On Friday, June 17, 2016 07:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:34:25AM +0800, Pingbo Wen wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 09:32 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> Having the consumer driver know that it's "critical" seems wrong since >>> different systems may have different ideas about that, it's probably >>> better to hook this in with the device model so that when the device >>> finishes probing that kicks things off. > >> That will imply the protection would be end when the specific device has >> probed, and consumers should take their place at the same time. But >> there have some other devices, which will set the consumer in a IRQ >> event, or after some other events, can't be covered. > > I don't understand what this means, sorry. > I mean maybe there's some consumer driver only do partial initialization during probing. >> We can set the protection flag easily, but it's hard to tell whether a >> consumer is well initialized, the end of protection, since regulator >> consumer is not initialized within one call. > > If the driver is not initializing itself during probe the driver is > doing something wrong and needs to be fixed anyway. > OK, if all driver have full initialized during probing, and we need insert a hook after driver probing. I think we can add a function in driver/base/dd.c:driver_probe_device() as this: ret = really_probe(dev, drv); ... if (!ret) regulator_clean_up(dev); And in regulator_clean_up(), we can iterate all regulator deivce, and call a regulator_clear_boot_protection function: if (!rdev->constraints->boot_protection) return 0; if (strcmp(rdev->constraints->critical_consumer, dev_name(dev))) return 0; rdev->constraints->boot_protection = 0; ... -real clean stuffs- the critical_consumer can be specified in devicetree. Add a callback in driver_probe_device() is not so good, but it's fine for me. Pingbo