On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:10:08PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:13:07PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > That would make the specification of a vcc supply obligatory IIUC. (Yes, > > > the semantic difference between regulator_get vs. regulator_get_optional > > > is reversed when comparing to gpio_get vs. gpio_get_optional.) Not really, in both cases the _optional() case is for the case where the requested resource may reasonably be absent. > > So, is regulator_get_optional() meant for cases where the device can > > truly function without the supply in question? And regulator_get() > > should be used when the device needs the supply, even if the supply > > cannot be controlled via SW, and thus we may not even have the supply > > visible in the SW side (leading to using dummy regulator)? > Yeah, I think this is the right picture. Yes, exactly. Even in cases where supplies could potentially be software controlled frequently system constraints make it impossible to actually change their state so the consumer should not normally assume that a disable will actually happen.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
