Am 31.05.2017 um 22:59 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:14:56 +0200 Oleksij Rempel <o.rem...@pengutronix.de>
> wrote:
>
>> On some boards the SoC can use one pin "PMIC_STBY_REQ" to notify th PMIC
>> about state changes. In this case internal state of PMIC must be
>> preconfigured for upcomming state change.
>> It works fine with the current regulator framework, except with the
>> power-off case.
>>
>> This patch is providing an optional pm_power_off_prepare handler
>> which will configure the PMIC_StandBy state to disable all power lines.
>>
>> In my power consumption test on RIoTBoard, I got the following results:
>> poweroff without this patch: 320 mA
>> poweroff with this patch: 2 mA
>> suspend to ram: 40 mA
>>
>> ...
>>
>> +static int pfuze_poweroff_pre_init(struct pfuze_chip *pfuze_chip)
>> +{
>> + if (pfuze_chip->chip_id != PFUZE100) {
>> + dev_warn(pfuze_chip->dev, "Requested pm_power_off_prepare
>> handler for not supoorted chip\n");
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (pm_power_off_prepare) {
>> + dev_warn(pfuze_chip->dev, "pm_power_off_prepare is already
>> registred.\n");
>> + return -EBUSY;
>> + }
>> +
>> + syspm_pfuze_chip = pfuze_chip;
>> + pm_power_off_prepare = pfuze_poweroff_pre;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>
> Ah, there it is.
>
> This looks a bit dodgy. What happens after someone does rmmod on this
> driver?ok, got it. > (typo in comment: "supoorted") > > (I wish we could get "poweroff" and "power_off" consistent) Hm.. only in this case or in DT bindings too? Which variant should be used? Driver: *_power_off_*; DT: *-power-off-* ? -- Regards, Oleksij
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
