Dne Ãt 5. ÅÃjna 2010 08:49:07 Igor Grinberg napsal(a): > On 09/09/10 12:41, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 10:27:17AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> Dne Ãt 7. zÃÅÃ 2010 14:53:35 Mark Brown napsal(a): > >>> From a regulator API usage point of view a separate implementation of > >>> the same thing was nacked - there are regulator API facilties for > >>> hiding missing regulators from drivers when needed to get systems > >>> going, unless the device genuinely can cope without supplies it should > >>> be relying on those. > > I actually, don't see why ads7846 is strictly relying on the regulator > and I don't understand, why ads7846 driver has to bail out if the regulator > is not found? Why shouldn't the driver try to continue? > I think it should bail out only in case communicating with the device > failed. Well, I can't but agree ... it's unnecessary crud indeed. > > >> Maybe these platforms should have been fixed prior to applying the patch > >> adding regulator goo into ads7846 driver then. What's the way to go now > >> then ? > > > > Fix the platforms and use the dummy regulators to keep them going until > > that happens. It's trivial to do the hookup in the platforms. > > You want each platform, that does not have a special regulated power supply > for the ads7846, to define a dummy regulator just to cope with that > artificial dependency of the device driver? You can enable some option in the regulator stuff that automagically shoves in a dummy regulator, but it's still additional crud. > I think it is a waste and big code duplication in each platform > that does not have that special regulator. Indeed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
