Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] regulator: core: add helper to check if regulator is disabled in suspend | Date | Fri, 11 Jan 2019 14:08:19 +0000 |
| |
On 11.01.2019 14:39, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:24:26AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com 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. >
| |