On Friday 07 of June 2013 11:24:04 Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 12:19:58PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Thursday 06 of June 2013 21:46:45 Doug Anderson wrote: > > > dw_mmc is probed. This regulator is optional, though a warning will > > > be printed if it's missing. The fact that the regulator is optional > > > means that (at the moment) it's not possible to use a regulator that > > > probes _after_ dw_mmc. > > > > > > Fix this limitation by adding the ability to make vmmc required. If > > > a > > > vmmc-supply is specified in the device tree we'll assume that vmmc > > > is > > > required. > > > > This interesting case makes me think that regulator core should > > differentiate between regulator lookup failure due to no lookup > > specified and due to the regulator specified in lookup being > > unavailable, returning appropriate (different) error codes. > > It does exactly that in so far as it can - you get -ENODEV if there's > definitely no supply and -EPROBE_DEFER otherwise. Oh, right, thanks. I somehow felt that it should be doing this already, but I was looking at 3.9 on Free Electron's LXR. It does so since commit 1e4b545cdd regulator: core: return err value for regulator_get if there is no DT binding so I think this patch should be reworked to check the returned error code instead. Best regards, Tomasz -- 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
