[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zi5kii00.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:31:59 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/panel: lvds: Handle the optional regulator case properly
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> My preference, however, would be for devm_regulator_get_optional() to return
> NULL when no regulator is present. The current implementation returns -ENODEV
> in multiple cases, making it impossible to properly discriminate between
> having no regulator and not being able to get the regulator due to an error.
Just a word of warning, IS_ERR(NULL) is false, and your proposed change
would apparently require quite a churn all over the kernel.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists