From: "Paul Louvel" <paul.louvel@bootlin.com>
To: "Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
"Paul Louvel" <paul.louvel@bootlin.com>
Cc: "Conor Dooley" <conor@kernel.org>,
"Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
"Herve Codina" <herve.codina@bootlin.com>,
"Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: dt-bindings: Add regulator-boot-force-off property
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 14:39:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DMBDGGZBYN60.37URQHQR2TS4C@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <atn_-NKv45AsROu3@sirena.co.uk>
Hi Mark,
On Thu Oct 22, 2026 at 2:22 PM CEST, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 07:11:51PM +0200, Paul Louvel wrote:
>> On Wed Oct 21, 2026 at 7:01 PM CEST, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 12:27:42PM +0200, Paul Louvel wrote:
>
>> >> + regulator-boot-force-off:
>> >> + description: a regulator may be enabled by default when the system powers up.
>> >> + A consumer may query the regulator's state during boot and disable it if
>> >> + it is already enabled, potentially resulting in an unbalanced disable
>> >> + operation. This property ensures that the regulator is disabled at boot,
>> >> + regardless of its previous state.
>
>> > To be honest, I'm not sure how the commentary about querying the state
>> > or being unbalanced is relevant to the description - that sounds like
>> > something specific to the linux regulator framework?
>
> I'm fairly sure this is about masking some driver bug, a driver should
> never be disabling something it didn't enable.
>
>> Yes it is. Maybe I miss something, does this binding is used outside linux ?
>
> Pretty sure u-boot uses it.
>
>> > In fact, I'm not sure why this is needed at all? Can't you just change
>> > the software so that it is okay to disable a regulator that has an
>> > explicit enable count of zero?
>
>> Do you mean by calling regulator_force_disable() instead ? I thinked about that
>> but I don't think this is ideal.
>
> No, you should only be using that API for recovering from catastrophic
> hardware errors where you're cutting power to do something like
> preventing physical damange to the system and serious disruption to
> other users is an acceptable cost.
Then I think a straightforward solution without any core change would be to call
regulator_enable() and immediately follow it with regulator_disable() in the
consumer driver's probe function to ensure that the regulator is in a known
disabled state.
I have considered this solution, but it doesn't feel quite right either, but
neither does this patch.
Thanks,
--
Paul Louvel, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-22 12:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-21 10:27 [PATCH 0/5] Add TI LM51772 buck-boost voltage regulator Paul Louvel
2026-10-21 10:27 ` [PATCH 1/5] regulator: dt-bindings: Add regulator-boot-force-off property Paul Louvel
2026-10-21 17:01 ` Conor Dooley
2026-10-21 17:11 ` Paul Louvel
2026-10-22 7:08 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-10-22 12:22 ` Mark Brown
2026-10-22 12:39 ` Paul Louvel [this message]
2026-10-21 10:27 ` [PATCH 2/5] regulator: dt-bindings: Add TI LM51772 support Paul Louvel
2026-10-21 10:27 ` [PATCH 3/5] regulator: core: Add mechanism to force disable a regulator at boot Paul Louvel
2026-10-22 13:48 ` Mark Brown
2026-10-21 10:27 ` [PATCH 4/5] regulator: Support regulators where the voltage selector spans two registers Paul Louvel
2026-10-22 17:21 ` Mark Brown
2026-10-23 10:02 ` Paul Louvel
2026-10-21 10:27 ` [PATCH 5/5] regulator: Add TI LM51772 support Paul Louvel
2026-10-21 15:10 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2026-10-22 17:34 ` Mark Brown
2026-10-23 7:24 ` Paul Louvel
2026-10-22 13:42 ` [PATCH 0/5] Add TI LM51772 buck-boost voltage regulator Mark Brown
2026-10-23 10:31 ` Paul Louvel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DMBDGGZBYN60.37URQHQR2TS4C@bootlin.com \
--to=paul.louvel@bootlin.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=conor@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=herve.codina@bootlin.com \
--cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®