[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpokiLQNp3JffxuKA5JxeL8+F3-2MK_cMv2FzcddOejQA=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:43:07 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Cc: cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq/regulator: Handle regulators that defer probe
with device tree bindings
On 5 April 2013 09:51, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> wrote:
> Currently get_regulator returns -EPROBE_DEFER in the case of regulator supply
> which have no device tree node or even if regulator which are depicted in device
> tree node is defering it's registration for valid reasons.
>
> This makes it impossible to use an regulator that registers itself after
> cpufreq-cpu0 probe is complete. The reason for the same is regulator framework
> fails to return appropriate error value when device tree binding is not actually
> present as a node.
>
> Once we fix that, we can then fix cpufreq-cpu0 to make intelligent decisions
> based on return value.
>
> Nishanth Menon (2):
> regulator: core: return err value for regulator_get if there is no DT
> binding
> cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: defer probe when regulator is not ready
>
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
> drivers/regulator/core.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
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