Hello, Cc += Liam Girdwood, Mark Brown On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:13:07PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 16/02/16 15:48, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello Tomi, > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 03:00:00PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >> On 20/12/15 13:13, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > >>> @@ -223,6 +232,10 @@ static int panel_dpi_probe_of(struct platform_device *pdev) > >>> if (IS_ERR(gpio)) > >>> return PTR_ERR(gpio); > >>> > >>> + ddata->vcc_supply = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "vcc"); > >>> + if (IS_ERR(ddata->vcc_supply)) > >>> + return PTR_ERR(ddata->vcc_supply); > >> > >> devm_regulator_get_optional()? > > > > That would make the specification of a vcc supply obligatory IIUC. (Yes, > > the semantic difference between regulator_get vs. regulator_get_optional > > is reversed when comparing to gpio_get vs. gpio_get_optional.) > > This is a bit confusing... > > So, is regulator_get_optional() meant for cases where the device can > truly function without the supply in question? And regulator_get() > should be used when the device needs the supply, even if the supply > cannot be controlled via SW, and thus we may not even have the supply > visible in the SW side (leading to using dummy regulator)? Yeah, I think this is the right picture. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
