[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5123D362.4000702@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:32:50 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>,
Mike Rapoport <mike@...pulab.co.il>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other
than SM0/1 is not fatal
On 02/19/2013 11:26 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:47:29AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/16/2013 04:50 AM, Axel Lin wrote:
>
>>> Ignore the setting and show "Only SM0/SM1 can set slew rate"
>>> warning is enough, then we can return 0 instead of -EINVAL in
>>> tps6586x_regulator_set_slew_rate().
>>>
>>> Otherwise, probe() fails.
>
>> Why does probe() fail; what is trying to set a slew rate on a
>> regulator that doesn't support it? At least a few days ago in
>> linux-next, this patch wasn't needed AFAIK. Is the problem
>> something new?
>
> I rather suspect Axel is doing this based on code inspection and
> review rather than testing (either that or he has an enormous lab
> somewhere full of all sorts of hardware!)
Makes sense.
> - what he's saying is that the error handling here seems
> excessive.
Why shouldn't the driver return an error if it's asked to do something
that's impossible?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists