On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:23:41AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 10.11.2020 23:32, Mark Brown пишет: > >>> + if (!device_property_present(dc->dev, "core-supply")) > >>> + return; > >> This is a potentially heavy operation, so I think we should avoid that > >> here. How about you use devm_regulator_get_optional() in ->probe()? That > >> returns -ENODEV if no regulator was specified, in which case you can set > >> dc->core_reg = NULL and use that as the condition here. > > Or enumerate the configurable voltages after getting the regulator and > > handle that appropriately which would be more robust in case there's > > missing or unusual constraints. > I already changed that code to use regulator_get_optional() for v2. That doesn't look entirely appropriate given that the core does most likely require some kind of power to operate. > Regarding the enumerating supported voltage.. I think this should be > done by the OPP core, but regulator core doesn't work well if > regulator_get() is invoked more than one time for the same device, at > least there is a loud debugfs warning about an already existing I don't understand why this would be an issue - if nothing else the core could just offer an interface to trigger the check. > directory for a regulator. It's easy to check whether the debug > directory exists before creating it, like thermal framework does it for > example, but then there were some other more difficult issues.. I don't > recall what they were right now. Perhaps will be easier to simply get a > error from regulator_set_voltage() for now because it shouldn't ever > happen in practice, unless device-tree has wrong constraints. The constraints might not be wrong, there might be some board which has a constraint somewhere for
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
