[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180501204033.GB2714@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 05:40:36 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: changbin.du@...el.com
Cc: yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com, michal.lkml@...kovi.net,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
x86@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, arnd@...db.de,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] regulator: add dummy of_find_regulator_by_node
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 09:00:11PM +0800, changbin.du@...el.com wrote:
> From: Changbin Du <changbin.du@...el.com>
>
> If device tree is not enabled, of_find_regulator_by_node() should have
> a dummy function since the function call is still there.
>
> Signed-off-by: Changbin Du <changbin.du@...el.com>
This appears to have no obvious connection with the cover letter for the
series... The first question here is if this is something best fixed
with a stub or by fixing the users - is the lack of a stub pointing out
some bugs in them? I'm a bit worried about how we've been managing to
avoid any build test issues here though, surely the various builders
would have spotted a problem?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists