On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 07:38:08PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 12:36:27PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > a bit unsure if regulator_bulk_force_disable() is indeed the right > > function here, its documentation specifies a different usecase. > > > My motivation for this change was to make it obvious in > > cs42l51_i2c_remove() that there is no error to handle to eventually make > > i2c remove callbacks return void, too. > > It would be better to just ignore the errors on disable. Yeah, and part of this is if regulator #1 fails to disable still disable regulators #2 and #3. (I don't know how many there are.) That was why I picked regulator_bulk_force_disable() which has this behaviour. > Realistically you'd have to really be trying to trigger an error here > and it's most likely that the system is in enough trouble if one is > triggered that it's just not worrying about. I'm not sure how likely > it is that anyone would ever remove one of these devices in production > though. So compared to my patch you'd just drop the warning?! Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
