Hi Dmitry,
On 20-01-10 08:18, Marco Felsch wrote:
> On 20-01-10 08:16, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
> > On 20-01-09 17:09, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > Hi Marco,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 12:10:50PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > > > +static int __maybe_unused edt_ft5x06_ts_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> > > > + struct edt_ft5x06_ts_data *tsdata = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (device_may_wakeup(dev))
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = regulator_enable(tsdata->vcc);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to enable vcc\n");
> > >
> > > I wonder if we should not return error here instead of continuing. If
> > > device is not powered up properly we'll have hard time communicating
> > > with it.
> >
> > That's a reasonable point.
> >
> > > The same is for suspend: maybe we should abort if we can't switch off
> > > regulator or write to the device.
> >
> > I have no strong opinion about that case but IMHO it's okay to go further
> > if we can't switch it off. Instead we should print a warning.
>
> I just noticed that we do that already.. So the suspend case should be
> okay.
Is it okay to check the return val for the resume case only? I want to
prepare a v4 of this patch to get this done.
Regards,
Marco
>
> > Regards,
> > Marco
> >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dmitry
> > >
>
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
