Hi Lee,
Thank you for your insights. I appreciate your guidance on the matter.
Yes will rewrite the change as below:
regmap = dev_get_regmap(pdev->dev.parent, NULL);
if (!regmap)
return -ENODEV;
I believe this modification aligns with your suggestion. Please let me
know if this meets the requirements or if you have any further
suggestions or adjustments
Regards,
Naresh
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 21:03, Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 at 17:45, Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 09 Nov 2023, Naresh Solanki wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Lee,
> > > >
> > > > Is there anything specific you'd suggest changing in the current
> > > > patchset, or are we good to proceed?
> > >
> > > What do you mean by proceed?
> > >
> > > You are good to make changes and submit a subsequent version.
> > >
> > > Not entirely sure what you're asking.
> >
> > As a follow up on previous discussion regarding use of DEFER on probe
> > if regmap isn't initialized, the implementation was based on other similar
> > drivers & hence it was retained although its not needed due to dependencies.
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure to keep the regmap check or make another
> > patch revision with regmap check removed ?
>
> You tell me.
>
> You should understand the device you're attempting to support along with
> the code you're authoring and its subsequent implications. If you don't
> know what a section of code does or whether/why it's required, why did
> you write it?
>
> --
> Lee Jones [李琼斯]
