Re: [RFC PATCH 2/7] regulator: Add devm helpers for get and enable

[Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>]

On 8/10/22 18:16, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 03:19:05PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> 
>> In order to tackle the issue the suggested API does not return handle to the
>> regulators - it really just provides the "get'n enable, then forget"
>> solution. The consumers who use the suggested API to "devm get'n enable"
>> will have had time manually controlling the regulator afterwards as they
>> will not get the handle. I would almost claim that the pattern we nowadays
>> see (devm_get, enable, add_action_or_reset(disable())) is more error prone
>> as users seem to in many case be storing the regulator handle w/o any
>> comment about the automated disable at detach.
> 
> Hrm, right - that does help with that case.  However we do need a bulk
> version since that's an obvious problem case.
I'll take a look at the bulk APIs and add them if they're not too 
complex. I'm a bit short on time as I was told I should be doing 
something we can show to a customer ;)

As a result of this discussion - not returning the handle to struct 
regulator * sounds like a safest option here. I'll drop the RFC when I 
respin this (hopefully with the bulk-APIs and a few more converted drivers)

Thanks for the input!

Best Regards
	Matti Vaittinen

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~

Discuss - Estimate - Plan - Report and finally accomplish this:
void do_work(int time) __attribute__ ((const));