[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=T3BG9X0gHfRA-x8B3ou3Y=XHcs=OTYAHikX61iAJ9xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 20:10:00 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arvind Chauhan <arvind.chauhan@....com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulators: Add definition of regulator_set_voltage_time()
for !CONFIG_REGULATOR
On 28 May 2014 23:08, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> Whatever - I don't think the particular code makes any practical
> difference. We would need to audit existing users who don't have a
> REGULATOR dependency for breakage though.
Exactly what kind of drivers are we looking to fix here? These might
be the possible cases:
- We are checking 'regulator pointer' before calling and don't need to
handle anything there..
- drivers depend on CONFIG_REGULATOR and so again we don't need
to handle anything
- None of above are true and drivers aren't checking return value of
regulator_set_voltage()
OR
They are checking it and failing when it failed..
What do we want to do in these cases?
--
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