Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 3 Jul 2023 13:31:05 +0300 | From | Matti Vaittinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC v4 09/13] regulator: implement mon_disable_reg_disabled |
| |
Hi deeee Ho Benjamin,
I hope your train back to home was not delayed too much ;)
On 6/20/23 23:03, Benjamin Bara wrote: > From: Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@skidata.com> > > The mon_disable_reg_disabled
The name of this always makes me to scratch my head a bit. (or, maybe it is just the sunburns at my bald).
Do you think making it: mon_disable_at_reg_disable or mon_disable_when_reg_disabled would be too long?
> property disables all dt-enabled monitors > before a regulator is disabled. If an error occurs while disabling the > regulator, the monitors are enabled again. > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@skidata.com> > --- > drivers/regulator/core.c | 19 ++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c > index 873e53633698..b37dcafff407 100644 > --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c > +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c > @@ -2965,7 +2965,7 @@ static int _regulator_do_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev) > > trace_regulator_enable_complete(rdev_get_name(rdev)); > > - return 0; > + return monitors_reenable(rdev, rdev->desc->mon_disable_reg_disabled);
As I wrote in my comment to previous patch, I might find the logic a bit more clear if the condition check was done here. Eg:
if (rdev->desc->mon_disable_when_reg_disabled) return monitors_reenable(...);
return 0;
> } > > /** > @@ -3124,8 +3124,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(regulator_enable); > > static int _regulator_do_disable(struct regulator_dev *rdev) > { > + const struct regulator_desc *desc = rdev->desc; > int ret; > > + ret = monitors_disable(rdev, desc->mon_disable_reg_disabled); > + if (ret) > + return ret;
Similarly, for me the logic would be easier to follow if this was:
if (desc->mon_disable_when_reg_disabled) monitors_disable(...);
> + > trace_regulator_disable(rdev_get_name(rdev)); > > if (rdev->ena_pin) { > @@ -3136,13 +3141,13 @@ static int _regulator_do_disable(struct regulator_dev *rdev) > rdev->ena_gpio_state = 0; > } > > - } else if (rdev->desc->ops->disable) { > - ret = rdev->desc->ops->disable(rdev); > + } else if (desc->ops->disable) { > + ret = desc->ops->disable(rdev); > if (ret != 0) > return ret; > } > > - if (rdev->desc->off_on_delay) > + if (desc->off_on_delay) > rdev->last_off = ktime_get_boottime(); > > trace_regulator_disable_complete(rdev_get_name(rdev)); > @@ -3180,6 +3185,7 @@ static int _regulator_disable(struct regulator *regulator) > _notifier_call_chain(rdev, > REGULATOR_EVENT_ABORT_DISABLE, > NULL); > + monitors_reenable(rdev, rdev->desc->mon_disable_reg_disabled);
same here,
> return ret; > } > _notifier_call_chain(rdev, REGULATOR_EVENT_DISABLE, > @@ -3246,6 +3252,7 @@ static int _regulator_force_disable(struct regulator_dev *rdev) > rdev_err(rdev, "failed to force disable: %pe\n", ERR_PTR(ret)); > _notifier_call_chain(rdev, REGULATOR_EVENT_FORCE_DISABLE | > REGULATOR_EVENT_ABORT_DISABLE, NULL); > + monitors_reenable(rdev, rdev->desc->mon_disable_reg_disabled);
here...
> return ret; > } > > @@ -6422,8 +6429,10 @@ static int regulator_late_cleanup(struct device *dev, void *data) > */ > rdev_info(rdev, "disabling\n"); > ret = _regulator_do_disable(rdev); > - if (ret != 0) > + if (ret != 0) { > rdev_err(rdev, "couldn't disable: %pe\n", ERR_PTR(ret)); > + monitors_reenable(rdev, rdev->desc->mon_disable_reg_disabled);
... and here. > + } > } else { > /* The intention is that in future we will > * assume that full constraints are provided >
These were just very minor things. Mostly looks good for me.
Yours, -- Matti
-- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
| |