On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 04:21:55PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 04:52:26PM +0200, Grazvydas Ignotas wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Mark Brown > > > > The updates to fix up the boards that need this are fairly > > > straightforward and given that it's fairly easy to identify systems > > > which are using the driver in mainline so I'd really prefer not to go > > > down the route of trying to carry on in the face of error, it papers > > > over stuff now but is not robust in the face of future changes. > > > What about warning and continuing only on ENODEV then? I really don't > > want to be responsible for potentially breaking touchscreen on ~30 > > boards, where I have no idea about how things are wired up and how the > > regulators should be set up. > > I'm really not terribly enthusiastic about that approach - like I say, > it just moves the problem about a bit and postpones the breakage in a > potentially more obscure fashion. > Maybe we should rely on platform data to tell us whether we need to plug into regulator framework and in this case fail hard on any error? -- Dmitry -- 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
