[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150807120906.GR20873@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:09:06 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/18] regulator: core: Probe regulators on demand
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 04:11:43PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> When looking up a regulator through its OF node, probe it if it hasn't
> already.
>
> The goal is to reduce deferred probes to a minimum, as it makes it very
> cumbersome to find out why a device failed to probe, and can introduce
> very big delays in when a critical device is probed.
Still the same problem as we had before with this stuff, why is this DT
only?
> #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> @@ -1336,6 +1337,7 @@ static struct regulator_dev *regulator_dev_lookup(struct device *dev,
> if (dev && dev->of_node) {
> node = of_get_regulator(dev, supply);
> if (node) {
> + of_platform_probe(node);
And why the assumption that this is a platform device?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists