Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:48:45 +0200 | From | Tomi Valkeinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv9 1/3] Runtime Interpreted Power Sequences |
| |
On 2012-11-21 10:32, Alex Courbot wrote:
>> Ok. I'll need to dig up the conversation > > IIRC it was somewhere around here: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/7/662 > > See the parent messages too.
Thanks.
>> Did you consider any examples >> of how some driver could handle the error cases? > > For all the (limited) use cases I considered, playing the power-off sequence > when power-on fails just works. If power-off also fails you are potentially in > more trouble though. Maybe we could have another "run" function that does not > stop on errors for handling such cases where you want to "stop everything you > can".
If the power-off sequence disables a regulator that was supposed to be enabled by the power-on sequence (but wasn't enabled because of an error), the regulator_disable is still called when the driver runs the power-off sequence, isn't it? Regulator enables and disables are ref counted, and the enables should match the disables.
> Failures might be better handled if sequences have some "recovery policy" > about what to do when they fail, as mentioned in the link above. As you > pointed out, the driver might not always know enough about the resources > involved to do the right thing.
Yes, I think such recovery policy would be needed.
Tomi
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |