Messages in this thread | | | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2.6.28-rc3] regulator: add REGULATOR_MODE_OFF | Date | Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:42:35 -0800 |
| |
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:56:19PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > > I'm also wondering if part of what we need to do is add separate out the > > > reporting paths for the actual and requested status? At the minute we > > > only report the actual status and there's no indication of the logical > > > status which does create some confusion here. > > > Makes sense. Record "requested_mode" in "struct regulator_dev" > > and expose a new sysfs attribute for it. Should I update > > the $SUBJECT patch to do that too? > > It should be a separate patch, I'd say.
So you think I should split my "v2" patch in two chunks? One distinguishing requested-vs=actual mode, and the other allowing the actual mode to include OFF. (Possibly by just reporting mode 0 ...)
> Thinking about it I'm not sure if the hardware or logical state should > be the primary. In terms of debugging power consumption and so on the > physical state is probably the more important one but from the point of > view of Linux it's the logical state that matters most since that's what > Linux is actually doing (IYSWIM).
If there are both "requested opmode" and "opmode" attributes in sysfs, I don't see how one would be "primary"!
The difference is that one needs to be reported by hardware, and the other is trivially remembered by framework software.
- Dave
| |