[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130904132439.GA10155@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 14:24:39 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jic23@....ac.uk" <jic23@....ac.uk>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"denis.ciocca@...com" <denis.ciocca@...com>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] iio: pressure-core: st: Provide correct regulator
support
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 02:11:11PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:31:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > + /* Regulator not mandatory, but if requested we should enable it. */
> > + pdata->regulator = regulator_get(&indio_dev->dev, "vdd");
> > + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(pdata->regulator)) {
> Can regulator_get return NULL? As far as I can see, it either returns a
> valid reulator pointer or an ERR_PTR value.
Yes, NULL is a valid regulator.
> When you say "if requested", do you mean "if described in the dt"? If
> so, the above doesn't distunguish between a regulator not being listed
> and one failing to be got (e.g. if we got EPROBE_DEFER from
> regulator_get).
> I think this would be better handled with something like Mark Brown's
> suggested regulator_get_optional [1,2].
If the regulator may genuinely be absent from the system then it should
be being requested using regulator_get_optional(). Otherwise it should
be being requested using regulator_get(). In both cases it is important
that the driver pays attention to errors.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists