Daniel Baluta schrieb am 31.08.2015 um 14:56: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@xxxxxx> wrote: >> The regulator framework requests to balance regulator_enable() calls with >> regulator_disable() calls. To meet this requirement, set channels to 0 on >> remove, which implies a regulator_disable() call in case that channel was >> enabled. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@xxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- >> drivers/iio/dac/m62332.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/m62332.c b/drivers/iio/dac/m62332.c >> index cffc0630ed32..c61720de8606 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iio/dac/m62332.c >> +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/m62332.c >> @@ -243,6 +243,8 @@ static int m62332_remove(struct i2c_client *client) >> >> iio_device_unregister(indio_dev); >> iio_map_array_unregister(indio_dev); >> + m62332_set_value(indio_dev, 0, 0); >> + m62332_set_value(indio_dev, 0, 1); >> >> return 0; >> } > > Wouldn't be nice to factor this two calls in a separate function? > I thought about factoring out the same two calls in _susped() and reuse it here, as well (discarding error codes). But in contrast to the suspend call, which gets aborted on an error, both regulators have to be disabled in _remove() unconditionally. And to just have a call here like _powerdown(), I'm not really convinced the overhead/effort is worth the slight benefit. But I don't really mind, either. > thanks, > Daniel. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
