On 07/05/13 10:47, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 07 May 2013 01:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:42:53AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>> On Monday 06 May 2013 08:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 06:47:04PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> + if (palmas_usb->linkstat != PALMAS_USB_STATE_VBUS) {
>>>>> + if (palmas_usb->vbus_reg) {
>>>>> + ret = regulator_enable(palmas_usb->vbus_reg);
>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>> + dev_dbg(palmas_usb->dev,
>>>>> + "regulator enable failed\n");
>>>>> + goto ret0;
>>
>>>> This is very bad karma, why is the regulator optional?
>>
>>> The platform can provide it's own vbus control in which case this is
>>> not needed.
>>
>> So why is there no interaction with this external VBUS control and how
>> does the driver distinguish between that and an error getting the
>> regulator?
>
> The platform specifies if it provides its own VBUS control by the dt
> property ti,no_control_vbus. So the driver will give an error only
> when *ti,no_control_vbus* is not set. Graeme?
>
> Thanks
> Kishon
That is correct, but as currently there are only two users I guess this
depends on Laxmans usecase. If he doesn't need this extra complexity I
would remove it for now. It was originally done with another SoC in mind!
Graeme
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
