[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140603154854.GG31751@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 16:48:54 +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 08:55:25PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 3 June 2014 20:23, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 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 example, few cpufreq drivers are calling it during frequency
> transition and are checking return value as well.. And fail if it failed.
> One way out might be checking if pointer to regulator is valid or not
> and only call it if pointer is not NULL..
No, as I've explained repeatedly NULL is a perfectly valid regulator and
that's not going to work reliably. As I've previously requested please
think about what happens to cpufreq if we fail to ramp voltages.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists