[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/3] regulator: core: add helper to check if regulator is disabled in suspend

On 11.01.2019 14:39, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:24:26AM +0000, wrote:
>> On 09.01.2019 18:57, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> regulator state which feels fragile. But based on the cover letter
>>> that's kind of like what the initial proposal about target states was so
>>> perhaps this is the way we end up going...
>> Are you talking about [1] ?
> I can't follow that link right now, I'm working offline.
>> I can get rid of this patch, take advantage of [3] and [4] and introduce
>> also the regulator standby states. In this case, no matter the mapping b/w
>> Linux power saving modes and AT91 SoC's power saving modes, we will be
>> covered on misconfiguration (at least on SAMA5D2 Xplained board).
>> And in patch 3/3 I could get rid of regulator checks and rely on DT (bad
>> thing would be that in case of no input for regulator's state in
>> mem/standby the board could not properly suspended/resumed), if any.
>> What do you think about this?
> Like I say I'm working offline so I can't check the links but it sounds
> like you're saying that the existing suspend mode configuration features
> are enough for your systems?

Yes, if we rely on the fact that core's regulator device tree bindings for
suspend-to-mem/suspend-to-standby were filled correctly.

The function I added here was to double check that core's regulator will be
off in suspend/standby based on what was parsed from DT.

Thank you,
Claudiu Beznea

> so that's great - certainly what you're
> saying above sounds sensible to me but it's possible I misunderstood
> something based on not having the links.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-11 15:08    [W:0.074 / U:0.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site