lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] input: misc: pwm-vibra: Prevent unbalanced regulator
czw., 17 sty 2019 o 08:08 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
napisał(a):
>
> Hi Paweł,
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:11:31PM +0100, Paweł Chmiel wrote:
> > From: Jonathan Bakker <xc-racer2@live.ca>
> >
> > pwm_vibrator_stop disables the regulator, but it can be called from
> > multiple places, even when the regulator is already disabled. Fix this
> > by using regulator_is_enabled check when starting and stopping device.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Bakker <xc-racer2@live.ca>
> > Signed-off-by: Paweł Chmiel <pawel.mikolaj.chmiel@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/input/misc/pwm-vibra.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/pwm-vibra.c b/drivers/input/misc/pwm-vibra.c
> > index 55da191ae550..66677ee770ca 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/misc/pwm-vibra.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/misc/pwm-vibra.c
> > @@ -42,10 +42,12 @@ static int pwm_vibrator_start(struct pwm_vibrator *vibrator)
> > struct pwm_state state;
> > int err;
> >
> > - err = regulator_enable(vibrator->vcc);
> > - if (err) {
> > - dev_err(pdev, "failed to enable regulator: %d", err);
> > - return err;
> > + if (!regulator_is_enabled(vibrator->vcc)) {
>
> I do not think this is correct in case of shared supply, as this checks
> global state of regulator. That means that if there is another user, we
> may forego enabling regulator here, and that anther user may power it
> down and vibrator will stop working.
>
> I think you need a local flag here.
Ok will fix this (funny that in first version of patch there was such flag).
>
> > + err = regulator_enable(vibrator->vcc);
> > + if (err) {
> > + dev_err(pdev, "failed to enable regulator: %d", err);
> > + return err;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > pwm_get_state(vibrator->pwm, &state);
> > @@ -76,7 +78,8 @@ static int pwm_vibrator_start(struct pwm_vibrator *vibrator)
> >
> > static void pwm_vibrator_stop(struct pwm_vibrator *vibrator)
> > {
> > - regulator_disable(vibrator->vcc);
> > + if (regulator_is_enabled(vibrator->vcc))
> > + regulator_disable(vibrator->vcc);
>
> Looking at this, I wonder if we should not disable PWMs first and the
> disable regulator.
I will create and send separate patch for this.

Thanks for review
>
> >
> > if (vibrator->pwm_dir)
> > pwm_disable(vibrator->pwm_dir);
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Dmitry

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-17 09:45    [W:0.035 / U:4.684 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site