On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 14:31 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 05:49:23PM +0800, sean.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > + if (!info->modeset_mask) {
> > + dev_err(&rdev->dev, "regulator %s doesn't support set_mode\n",
> > + info->desc.name);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
>
> This is mostly fine but the mode operations all have this code - if the
> regulator doesn't have modesetting facilities it just shouldn't have
> the ops so the core can handle things in a standard fashion. It'd mean
> defining a separate set of operations for those regulators but that's
> fine.
Hi, Mark
it is really bad for those calls with certain regulator always returning
-EINVAL, that doesn't make sense.
we'll follow your suggestion and add them into the next version.
thanks for your help!
Sean
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-mediatek mailing list
> Linux-mediatek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
