On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:31:56PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:58:39PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 07:38:08PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > 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?! > > The warning is fine so long as there's no action on it but use regular > regulator_bulk_disable() since as you youself said force disable is not > appropriate here. It's just the documentation of regulator_bulk_force_disable() that irritates me. It's behaviour is exactly fine. If a user of several regulators goes away, it should try to disable all regulators and if one fails to disable it's better to the others instead of keeping all enabled. But I didn't feel strong enough to continue to argue, my focus is a different one. Will send a v2 with keeping regulator_bulk_disable(). Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
