Re: [PATCH v5 03/16] power: sequencing: Add pwrseq_power_is_on()
Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-acpi,dev.linux.lists.driver-core,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.infradead.lists.linux-mediatek,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pm,org.kernel.vger.linux-usb |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAMRc=Mcpu+k-zbY0bDf8q3_9o3qNsrt6uNCao5j3qQLnbjHYAQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 11:39:19 +0200, Chen-Yu Tsai <[email protected]> said: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 4:14 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> wrote: >> ... >> >> There's one more use-case where the power state trully can be *unknown*. >> Please look at the proposed new function from Loic[1]. Here we deal with >> targets over which linux has no direct power control even though it may still >> control some of its dependencies. This is where an UNKNOWN state may make >> sense. >> >> This is where I also floated an idea of renaming pwrseq_power_on/off() to >> pwrseq_vote_on/off() for better clarity of their purpose. > > OK. Would it make sense to revert to returning -EINVAL if the descriptor > is NULL now, and then add a different error return value if !controllable > in the future? > I don't think the latter part is needed. A non-controllable pwrseq descriptor is still a valid object and has an address pointing to it. Returning -EINVAL on NULL descriptors is probably all we need. Bart