Hi Alice,
> On 19 Feb 2025, at 13:28, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I wonder if enabled vs disabled should be two different types?
>
> Alice
I thought about having two types too, but I think it complicates the design.
```
let foo: Regulator = Regulator::get(/*…*/)?;
let foo_enabled: EnabledRegulator = foo.enable()?:
```
Let’s first agree that `Regulator::drop` is the right place to have `regulator_put`, since
`Regulator::get()` acquired the reference in the first place.
This means that now, `EnabledRegulator` has to depend on `Regulator` somehow to ensure
a proper drop order. Otherwise you might have an enabled regulator for which you don’t own
the refcount. Furthermore, if Regulator drops while EnabledRegulator is alive, you get a splat.
In a driver, you now have to store both Regulator - for the refcount - and EnabledRegulator
- as a way to tell the system you need that regulator to be active.
If EnabledRegulator is a guard type, this doesn’t work, as it creates a self-reference - on top
of being extremely clunky.
You can then have EnabledRegulator consume Regulator, but this assumes that the regulator
will be on all the time, which is not true. A simple pattern of
```
regulator_enable()
do_fancy_stuff()
regulator_disable()
```
Becomes a pain when one type consumes the other:
```
self.my_regulator.enable() // error, moves out of `&self`
```
I am sure we can find ways around that, but a simple `bool` here seems to fix this problem.