Re: [PATCH RFC v3 1/5] regulator: move monitor handling into own function

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 10:28:10AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

> I am thinking that maybe the default should still be to not touch the
> monitoring unless explicitly requested. My thinking is that the hardware

This is the general approach of the regulator API, we require explicit
permission to change any hardware setting since that way anything we do
that's unsafe for the hardware was the result of explicit permissions
rather than a software decision.

> > > I am unsure if we might also have cases where some regulator could
> > > really be enabled w/o core knowing it.

> > Unfortunately, I am not 100% sure what you mean by that.

> I was thinking of a case where regulator state is not readable - I'm not
> 100% sure how core thinks of their state. Another case could be a regulator
> which is not registered to the core but shares monitoring with some other
> regulator. This falls under the common monitoring category mentioned below.

I'd expect that a regulator which supports monitoring will have at least
the requested state readable so it wouldn't come up.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature