On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:03:23AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > So because we decided that we could not have devm_regulator_enable() > because of (IMO) contrived example of someone totally mixing up the devm > and non-devm APIs we now have to make more and more devm- variants > simply because we do not have access to the regulator structure with > devm_regulator_get_enable() and so all normal APIs are not available. I don't follow what you're saying here? What normal APIs are not available? AFAICT this has nothing to do with a devm enable, it's a combined operation which reports the voltage for the regulator if one is available which would still be being added even if it used a devm enable. > This is quite bad honestly. Mark, could we please reverse this > shortsighted decision and have normal devm_regulator_enable() operating > on a regulator? Nothing has changed here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
