Re: [PATCH v3] rust: regulator: add a bare minimum regulator abstraction

["Benno Lossin" <lossin@kernel.org>]

On Wed May 14, 2025 at 1:50 PM CEST, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 12:31:38PM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> On Wed May 14, 2025 at 12:16 PM CEST, Mark Brown wrote:
>> > Practically speaking if the regulator disable fails the system is having
>> > an extremely bad time and the actual state of the regulator is not clear.
>> > Users might want to try some attempt at retrying, one of which could
>> > possibly succeed in future, but realistically if this happens there's
>> > something fairly catastrophic going on.  Some critical users might want
>> > to care and have a good idea what makes sense for them, but probably the
>> > majority of users of the API aren't going to have a good strategy here.
>
>> Makes sense. So does `regulator_disable` take ownership of the refcount?
>> If yes, then just put that in the comment above the `ManuallyDrop` & in
>> the `Drop` impl of `EnabledRegulator`.
>
> In the C API the disable operation just fails and it's treated as though
> you hadn't done anything from a refcounting point of view.

But if it succeeds it takes ownership? The function `regulator_disable`
is also used in the `Drop` impl of the `EnabledRegulator`, so it better
give up the refcount, otherwise we would leak it.

---
Cheers,
Benno