[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140603145347.GE31751@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:53:47 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.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 Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 08:10:00PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 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..
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
> - 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?
Well, we would need to look at what the drivers were doing and figure
out something sensible - it really depends why they're trying to set the
regulator and what would happen if it doesn't work. For drivers that
ignore the return value they won't be affected anyway.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists