Re: [PATCH RFC] power: sequencing: rename pwrseq_power_on/off() to pwrseq_vote_on/off()

[Manivannan Sadhasivam]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 11:14:35AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 11:57:38AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > The way power sequencing works means that a call to pwrseq_power_on()
> > does not necessarily result in the pwrseq target being powered-on at
> > that time: it may have already been powered on before. Similarly: a call
> > to pwrseq_power_off() does not have to result in an actual powering off
> > of resources: there may still be other users that requested a power-on
> > before.
> > 
> > We will also introduce the concept of "non-controllable" pwrseq targets
> > soon which further increases the disconnect between the naming
> > convention and the actual semantics.
> > 
> > What consumers of pwrseq descriptors actually do is: they *vote* for a
> > powering on of a given target or retract that vote. These operations
> > could be called get/put in line with runtime PM but this could become
> > confusing since we already provide pwrseq_get/put() for a different
> > purpose.
> 
> I see the possible confusion with get/put interfaces, but "vote"
> doesn't seem exactly right because it really is refcounting, not a
> majority vote thing.
> 
> Maybe enable/disable is a possibility, since regulator_enable() and
> regulator_disable() have the same kind of refcount behavior?
> 

+1

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்