Hi Antonio, thanks for doing this, On Wed, May 18 2011, Antonio Ospite wrote: > When regulator_get() is stubbed down it returns NULL, handle this case > when deciding whether the driver can use the regulator or not. > > Remember: IS_ERR(NULL) is false, see also this discussion for more > insight: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/7934 > > Now that regulator_get() is handled correctly, the ifdef on > CONFIG_REGULATOR in mmci.c can go away as well. > > Signed-off-by: Antonio Ospite <ospite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c | 2 +- > drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 4 +--- > drivers/mmc/host/mxcmmc.c | 2 +- > drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 2 +- > 5 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c > index 87e1f57..5be1325 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c > @@ -1442,7 +1442,7 @@ static int __init dw_mci_init_slot(struct dw_mci *host, unsigned int id) > #endif /* CONFIG_MMC_DW_IDMAC */ > > host->vmmc = regulator_get(mmc_dev(mmc), "vmmc"); > - if (IS_ERR(host->vmmc)) { > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(host->vmmc)) { > printk(KERN_INFO "%s: no vmmc regulator found\n", mmc_hostname(mmc)); > host->vmmc = NULL; > } else > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c > index b4a7e4f..6fac353 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c > @@ -1058,10 +1058,9 @@ static int __devinit mmci_probe(struct amba_device *dev, > mmc->f_max = min(host->mclk, fmax); > dev_dbg(mmc_dev(mmc), "clocking block at %u Hz\n", mmc->f_max); > > -#ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR > /* If we're using the regulator framework, try to fetch a regulator */ > host->vcc = regulator_get(&dev->dev, "vmmc"); > - if (IS_ERR(host->vcc)) > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(host->vcc)) > host->vcc = NULL; > else { > int mask = mmc_regulator_get_ocrmask(host->vcc); > @@ -1077,7 +1076,6 @@ static int __devinit mmci_probe(struct amba_device *dev, > "(using regulator instead)\n"); > } > } > -#endif > /* Fall back to platform data if no regulator is found */ > if (host->vcc == NULL) > mmc->ocr_avail = plat->ocr_mask; > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mxcmmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mxcmmc.c > index cc20e02..a9152da 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mxcmmc.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mxcmmc.c > @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ static inline void mxcmci_init_ocr(struct mxcmci_host *host) > { > host->vcc = regulator_get(mmc_dev(host->mmc), "vmmc"); > > - if (IS_ERR(host->vcc)) { > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(host->vcc)) { > host->vcc = NULL; > } else { > host->mmc->ocr_avail = mmc_regulator_get_ocrmask(host->vcc); > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c > index 259ece0..45fd4fe 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c > @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ static int omap_hsmmc_reg_get(struct omap_hsmmc_host *host) > } > > reg = regulator_get(host->dev, "vmmc"); > - if (IS_ERR(reg)) { > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(reg)) { > dev_dbg(host->dev, "vmmc regulator missing\n"); > /* > * HACK: until fixed.c regulator is usable, > @@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ static int omap_hsmmc_reg_get(struct omap_hsmmc_host *host) > > /* Allow an aux regulator */ > reg = regulator_get(host->dev, "vmmc_aux"); > - host->vcc_aux = IS_ERR(reg) ? NULL : reg; > + host->vcc_aux = IS_ERR_OR_NULL(reg) ? NULL : reg; > > /* > * UGLY HACK: workaround regulator framework bugs. > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > index 5d20661..d3585d4 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > @@ -2004,7 +2004,7 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host) > goto untasklet; > > host->vmmc = regulator_get(mmc_dev(mmc), "vmmc"); > - if (IS_ERR(host->vmmc)) { > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(host->vmmc)) { > printk(KERN_INFO "%s: no vmmc regulator found\n", mmc_hostname(mmc)); > host->vmmc = NULL; > } else { I think I like this change for every driver *except* sdhci -- users who compile with CONFIG_REGULATOR=n (i.e. most distros) will start seeing "mmc0: no vmmc regulator found" when they boot their x86 laptops, and printing a cryptic regulator error message when regulator support isn't even compiled in seems uncalled for. So, I think my suggestion is to merge all but the last hunk of the patch. How do others feel about it? Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://printf.net/> One Laptop Per Child -- 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
