Hi, On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 05:57:44PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 05:47:14PM +0200, Ondřej Jirman wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 05:39:39PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:53:40PM +0200, megous@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > From: Ondrej Jirman <megous@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Use devm_regulator_get instead of devm_regulator_get_optional and rely > > > > on dummy supply. This avoids NULL checks before regulator_enable/disable > > > > calls. > > > > > > Hi Ondrej > > > > > > What do you mean by a dummy supply? I'm just trying to make sure you > > > are not breaking backwards compatibility. > > > > Sorry, I mean dummy regulator. See: > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/regulator/core.c#L1874 > > > > On systems that use DT (i.e. have_full_constraints() == true), when the > > regulator is not found (ENODEV, not specified in DT), regulator_get will return > > a fake dummy regulator that can be enabled/disabled, but doesn't do anything > > real. > > Hi Ondrej > > But we also gain a new warning: > > dev_warn(dev, > "%s supply %s not found, using dummy regulator\n", > devname, id); > > This regulator is clearly optional, so there should not be a warning. > > Maybe you can add a new get_type, OPTIONAL_GET, which does not issue > the warning, but does give back a dummy regulator. We already had a info message. See my other e-mail with the dmesg output. IMO, that warning is useful during development, and more informative than the previous one. regards, o. > Thanks > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
