[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150106160317.GB2634@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:03:17 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>,
Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@...vell.com>,
Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: core: Add a sanity check on the
regulator_ enable/disable functions
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 01:26:28PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 13:00, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This really only applies if it's likely that some thing that always gets
> > used if it's there might be missing which isn't the case for regulators,
> > it's not at all common to have power supplies that might be missing and
> Well the pattern the following pattern is very common in the drivers using
> the regulator:
> if (!IS_ERR(regulator_pointer)
> regulator_disable(regulator_pointer);
> So for me it was a good hint that we can factorize it.
It is? It shouldn't be...
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists