[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51243120.1030101@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:12:48 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>
CC: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.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 05:53 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
> 2013/2/20 Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>:
>> 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?
>>
>
> Oh, sorry for my poor Engilish.
> I mean probe fails because of having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1
> seems not necessary.
>
> In tps6586x_regulator_set_slew_rate() it uses dev_warn rather than dev_err
> for the default case.
> We can either using "dev_warn with return 0" or use "dev_err with
> return -EINVAL"
> in tps6586x_regulator_set_slew_rate().
Oh right, I understand. s/dev_warn/dev_err/ seems more appropriate to
me, I think.
--
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