On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:08:19AM +0100, Maciej Purski wrote: > On 12/12/2017 12:35 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 10:46:14AM +0100, Maciej Purski wrote: > > > + mutex_lock(®ulator_list_mutex); > > > + regulator_resolve_coupling(rdev); > > > + mutex_unlock(®ulator_list_mutex); > > I'd really expect us to be failing to probe if we run into an error. > > Otherwise we could end up doing bad things to the hardware at runtime > > later on, or confusing ourselves and crashing with partially set up > > datastructures. > We cannot fail to probe if some of the regulators are not registered > successfully, as depending on the probing sequence, there will be some > regulators, which won't be available when registering others. We can fail > when resolving coupling if we encounter other errors such as max_spread not > provided or disability to set voltage. Maybe that is what you meant. Yes, exactly - not having all the regulators yet isn't the only possible error and this will just ignore all errors. > > It's also not 100% clear to me how we handle the case > > where only some of the coupled regulators have probed. > I have two ideas how to handle it. We can prohibit setting the voltage and > always fail on attempt to set voltage of a coupled regulator. Or we can just > ignore it and set voltage of the regulator without checking the unregistered > ones. At least one of those needs to be implemented (not setting the voltage seems safer).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
