On 20-01-10 08:16, Marco Felsch wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On 20-01-09 17:09, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi Marco,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 12:10:50PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > > +static int __maybe_unused edt_ft5x06_ts_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> > > + struct edt_ft5x06_ts_data *tsdata = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (device_may_wakeup(dev))
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + ret = regulator_enable(tsdata->vcc);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to enable vcc\n");
> >
> > I wonder if we should not return error here instead of continuing. If
> > device is not powered up properly we'll have hard time communicating
> > with it.
>
> That's a reasonable point.
>
> > The same is for suspend: maybe we should abort if we can't switch off
> > regulator or write to the device.
>
> I have no strong opinion about that case but IMHO it's okay to go further
> if we can't switch it off. Instead we should print a warning.
I just noticed that we do that already.. So the suspend case should be
okay.
> Regards,
> Marco
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > Dmitry
> >
