Re: [PATCH 4/4] regulator: qcom: Rework to single platform device
From: Mark Brown
Date: Wed Mar 04 2015 - 19:56:41 EST
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 03:51:46PM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> I took a stab at implementing EPROBE_DEFER within qcom_rpm-regulator,
> but as it's a mixture of internal and external dependencies (e.g.
> <&pm8921_s4> vs <&pm8921_mpp 7>) this became quite messy. I started
> looking at using the dt dependencies sort and iterate over the entries
> in a way that adheres to their dependencies, but that's also a lot of
This is why I don't like trying to open code in subsystems, it's too
> So I think you're right, we should be able to alter the supply lookup
> code to defer the EPROBE_DEFER until we actually need the supply to be
> there; e.g. attempt to map supplies when an external consumer request
> the regulator.
> Some care needs to be taken with regards to e.g. always-on regulators.
I'm not sure why always on regulators would need special casing here?
Enabling is orthogonal to supply mapping.
Like I said in reply to Stephen's mail I'm more worried about
discoverability of problems with this approach and with interactions
with dependencies on other subsystems (mainly GPIOs). Thinking about it
some more the other subsystems will probably sort themselves out but the
diagnosics are an issue.
I do like the idea of a general mechanism for registering dependency
resources and deferring completion until they're ready more - I'm not
sure it's even that much more work, especially if the first cut only
handles regulators as a dependency... that feels like attacking the
right problem, there's other things people are raising with deferred
probe like your complaint about logging.
Description: Digital signature