On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 01:38:13PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Fri, 18 May 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > This is checking the value of regulator_get(), NULL is a perfectly valid > > > regulator value to get passed back. > > > Sorry, could you clarify, how it is valid? No, I'm not proposing to revive > > this patch, just curious, what exactly you meant by this. AFAICS NULL is > > never returned from regulator_get(). The value, that's returned by it is > > then directly dereferenced in other regulator API calls, for which you > > don't normally want a NULL. So, having a regulator pointer == NULL seems > > to be as valid to me as causing a BUG() is? :-) > > The stubs return NULL and we could decide in future to use NULL for > something else (though that seems unlikely). Ah, sure, forgot about that, sorry. In fact, I was wondering, whether it's indeed a good idea to return success from functions like regulator_set_voltage() or regulator_get_voltage() when regulator is even not configured? Isn't it confusing for drivers to get a success from set_voltage(voltage > 0) and then get 0V back from get_voltage()? Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
