>>> I think that's probably only OK if we have a specific error code for the
>>> regulator being limited in this way otherwise our error handling for I/O
>>> problems involves us trying to reconfigure supplies which seems like it
>>> would be risky.
>> Would you be ok with -EAGAIN being used for this purpose?
> Using -EAGAIN for "I can't ever read the configuration from this
> regulator" doesn't seem right - it's not like any number of retries
> will ever manage to read the value back.
In this case, the _regulator_get_voltage() call can succeed, but only
after a voltage is explicitly requested from the framework side. The
intention here would then be to call _regulator_do_set_voltage() with the
constraint min_uV to max_uV range. After that, subsequent
_regulator_get_voltage() calls will be successful.
Here is the general idea:
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index 65f9b7c..e61983d 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -910,6 +910,19 @@ static int machine_constraints_voltage(struct
regulator_dev *rdev,
rdev->constraints->min_uV && rdev->constraints->max_uV) {
int target_min, target_max;
int current_uV = _regulator_get_voltage(rdev);
+ if (current_uV == -EAGAIN) {
+ /*
+ * Regulator voltage cannot be read until after
+ * configuration; try setting constraint range.
+ */
+ rdev_info(rdev, "Setting %d-%duV\n",
+ rdev->constraints->min_uV,
+ rdev->constraints->max_uV);
+ _regulator_do_set_voltage(rdev,
+ rdev->constraints->min_uV,
+ rdev->constraints->max_uV);
+ current_uV = _regulator_get_voltage(rdev);
+ }
if (current_uV < 0) {
rdev_err(rdev,
"failed to get the current voltage(%d)\n",
Do you still have reservations about using -EAGAIN for this purpose? If
so, which error code would you suggest using?
Thanks,
David
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
