Re: [PATCH RFC/RFT] regulator: ab8500: Remove is_enabled from structab8500_regulator_info

[Bengt JÃnsson]

On 03/26/2013 07:50 AM, Axel Lin wrote:
> The is_enabled flag looks not necessary at all, it also introduces some issues
> because current code updates info->is_enabled flag in error paths of
> ab8500_regulator_enable() and ab8500_regulator_disable().
> Thus this patch removes is_enabled from struct ab8500_regulator_info.
>
> This patch also removes info->is_enabled checking in ab8500_regulator_set_mode(),
> so it allows setting mode even the regulator is disabled.
This patch will change the behaviour of set_mode as the ab8500 
regulators share mode and enable in the same register bits:
- off = 0b00
- low power mode= 0b11
- full powermode = 0b01
- (HW control mode = 0b10)

To keep regulator_enable/disable apart from regulator_set_mode I think 
this patch should not go in.
> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Hi,
> This patch also removes info->is_enabled checking in ab8500_regulator_set_mode().
> I'm not very clear if we should avoid setting mode when the regulator is disabled.
> It looks to me if we don't want to allow setting mode when regulator is disabled,
> this checking should be done in regulator-core.
Checking in regulator-core seems like a good idea to me.It would make 
the ab8500 code more clean, but I don't know how other drivers will be 
affected.
> Seems current code in other regulator drivers does not check if regulator is
> enabled or not in set_mode callback implementation.
> Axel
I know some other hardware has separate register bits for mode and 
enable which matches the framework better.

Bengt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/