Regulators in suspend

Balaji Rao balajirrao at
Mon Dec 1 19:48:21 CET 2008

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:49:49PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 08:51:25PM +0530, Balaji Rao wrote:
> > And, I don't understand why enabling an already enabled regulator should
> > result in a warning.. May be I don't know of real life examples where
> > such a thing would be cause side effects. I was thinking along the lines
> > of kfree, which doesn't shout if a NULL pointer is passed to it..
> The client enable and disable operations don't operate on the physical
> regulator, they operate on reference counts that feed into the actual
> decision for the hardware (via machine constraints).  Given that model
> but a lack of actual per-client reference counting in the core it was
> safest to warn on any attempt to use multiple enables.  2.6.29 will let
> you do multiple enables but will reference count so that you need an
> equal number of disables to actually disable the client.
> This means that you will still need to maintain the per-consumer state
> that you're not currently maintaining - before 2.6.29 you'll get a
> warning when attempting to do multiple enables, after then you'll find
> that multiple enables need to be balanced by the same number of disables
> which doesn't look to be the intended effect of your code.

Ok, got it. Thank you.

	- Balaji

More information about the openmoko-kernel mailing list