[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111027154638.GA16946@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:46:38 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...c.com>,
Mathieu Poirer <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Robert Marklund <robert.marklund@...ricsson.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v3] net/smsc911x: Add regulator support
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 03:21:47PM +0200, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> my gut reaction: smsc911x is working just fine without regulator
> support for many people, so why do we suddenly need to make it a
> requirement ? this is a fairly small amount of code, so adding a
> smsc911x Kconfig symbol to control the regulator support seems like
> overkill. only other option would be to change the patch to not make
> missing regulators non-fatal. so i'd probably lean towards the latter
> (and it sounds like you changed this with earlier versions).
The regulator API contains a series of generic facilities for stubbing
itself out when not in use - there's no need for individual drivers to
worry about this stuff, they should just rely on the framework. The
main one at the minute is REGULATOR_DUMMY which does what you suggest
and makes regulator_get() never fail.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists