On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:02:58AM -0800, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:51:52AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > I think it is helps if you think about devm_regulator_enable and regular > > regulator_enable as managed and unmanaged *actions*, not resources. So > > That's how I see them but it's still not really helping my concern, in > general if you do a thing with devm_ you don't want to also be > interacting with the same resource in the same way with a non-managed > call.
It really depends on how you structure your API. For input, for example, I only provide devm_input_alloc_device() and I made the rest of the functions handle both managed and unmanaged input devices and they internally sort it all out between themselves. But that is what I meant here about managed action. You are not interacting with managed regulator here, you have managed enable. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from calling devm_regulator_enable() on a regulator that was obtained with regulator_get() (i.e. non-managed). > > > managed action of enabling regulator will be undone on remove() and you > > have to manually undo unmanaged regulator_disable() on resume(). It is > > not worse than having unbalanced regulator_enable/disable between > > probe()/suspend()/resume()/remove(). > > I find it that bit harder to think about - tracking balancing of the > same thing is a lot easier than tracking balancing of two different not > quite equivalent things. Hmm... so what do we do (because I think this devm API is quite useful for cleaning up probe and remove in many drivers)? Do you want it to operate on a separate counter which we can check against underflow separately from classic regulator_enable() and regulator_disable()? Not sure if this will buy us much though and it will make bulk code uglier... Thanks. -- Dmitry
