[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181130073804.1e57226f@kemnade.info>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:38:04 +0100
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: johan@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Discussions about the Letux Kernel
<letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/5] gnss: sirf: add a separate supply for a lna
Hi,
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 19:03:57 +0100
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Devices might have a separate lna between antenna output of the gps
> > chip and the antenna which might have a separate supply
>
> Might have.
>
> > @@ -340,6 +349,12 @@ static int sirf_probe(struct serdev_device *serdev)
> > goto err_put_device;
> > }
> >
> > + data->lna = devm_regulator_get(dev, "lna");
> > + if (IS_ERR(data->lna)) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(data->lna);
> > + goto err_put_device;
> > + }
> > +
>
> But it is not optional in the code. Probably should be?
well, if it no lna regulator is defined in the dtb, the regulator
framework will return a dummy regulator. devm_regulator_get_optional()
would not do that and would require more error checking in the code.
But if there is some rule which says that devm_regulator_get_optional()
should be used here, I can of course change that.
Before sending a v2, is that the only issue here?
Regards,
Andreas
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists