On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 08:49:07AM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote: > 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. > > >> 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? > I think it is a waste and big code duplication in each platform > that does not have that special regulator. > I tend to agree, however I think that original patch that simply ignored failures from regulator_get() is not the best option either. Can we have a flag in platform data indicating that the board does not employ a regulator? Then we could retain the hard failure in cases when we expect regulator to be present while allowing to continue on boards that do not have it. -- Dmitry -- 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
