Re: [RFC v1 0/4] Simplify regulator supply resolution code by offloading to driver core

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 12:32:47AM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> Hi Mark/Liam,
> 
> This series is just an RFC to see if you agree with where this is going.
> Please point out bugs, but don't bother with a proper code review.
> 
> The high level idea is to not reimplement what driver core can already
> handle for us and use it to do some of the work. Instead of trying to
> resolve supplies from all different code paths and bits and pieces of
> the tree, we just build it from the root to the leaves by using deferred
> probing to sequence things in the right order.
> 
> The last patch is the main one. Rest of them are just setting up for it.
> 
> I believe there's room for further simplification but this is what I
> could whip up as a quick first draft that shows the high level idea.
> I'll probably need some help with getting a better understanding of why
> things are done in a specific order in regulator_register() before I
> could attempt simplifying things further.
> 
> Ideally, regulator_register() would just have DT parsing, init data
> struct sanity checks and adding the regulator device and then we move
> everything else to into the probe function that's guaranteed to run only
> after the supply has been resolved/ready to resolve.
> 
> fw_devlink/device links should further optimize the flow and also allow
> us to simplify some of the guarantees and address some of the existing
> FIXMEs. But this patch series is NOT dependent on fw_devlink or device
> links.
> 
> Any thoughts on where this is going?
> 
> I've tested this on one hardware I have and it works and nothing is
> broken. But the regulator tree in my hardware isn't that complicated or
> deep. The regulators are also added mostly in the right order (due to
> existing fw_devlink). So if you agree with the idea, the next step is to
> ask people to give it a test.
> 
> Also, it's based on driver-core-next since that's what I had synced up
> and had a working baseline. I'll rebase it on the regulator tree when I
> go from RFC -> PATCH.

At first glance, this looks sane to me, thanks for doing this work!

greg k-h