2013/4/15 Bengt Jönsson <[email protected]>: > On 04/15/2013 02:13 PM, Axel Lin wrote: >>> >>> I guess what you don't like with the current approach is that the driver >>> returns REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE in some cases where the mode register is set >>> to >>> LP. But I think, with patch applied, the control may be wrong in some >>> cases >>> because the regulator framework will call get_mode and see that the mode >>> is >>> already correct and not call set_mode so lp_mode_req will not get >>> updated. I >> >> I got your point now. >> >> My point is get_mode() should always return "correct" status by >> reading register value. >> And as you mentioned, regulator_set_mode() did check current mode and >> won't call >> set_mode callback if current mode is the same as the target mode. >> And that is why this patch won't work. >> >> However, Make get_mode() return "incorrect" status to avoid above >> issue looks wrong to me. >> >> Regards, >> Axel > > I understand your point of view, but I think that the framework (as it is > currently implemented) expects to get the requested mode of the regulator in > this case, not the actual mode (in the shared mode register).The alternative > could be to change the framework in some way. > > Any ideas? Otherwise I propose to keep the code and maybe add a comment.
It looks to me a simple fix is to just get rid of the check of old mode with new mode setting. Something like reverse of commit 500b4ac90d1103 "regulator: return set_mode is same mode is requested" would work. Regards, Axel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
