On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 17:46, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 03:21:47PM +0200, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> my gut reaction: smsc911x is working just fine without regulator >> support for many people, so why do we suddenly need to make it a >> requirement ? this is a fairly small amount of code, so adding a >> smsc911x Kconfig symbol to control the regulator support seems like >> overkill. only other option would be to change the patch to not make >> missing regulators non-fatal. so i'd probably lean towards the latter >> (and it sounds like you changed this with earlier versions). > > The regulator API contains a series of generic facilities for stubbing > itself out when not in use - there's no need for individual drivers to > worry about this stuff, they should just rely on the framework. The > main one at the minute is REGULATOR_DUMMY which does what you suggest > and makes regulator_get() never fail. i saw that !CONFIG_REGULATOR works great. my concern is that these boards don't define any regulators for smsc resources, so if CONFIG_REGULATOR is enabled to test out unrelated daughter cards, i don't want the network driver suddenly failing. Linus' comments suggest that this is what would happen unless each board file has its smsc platform resources extended. maybe i misunderstood what he was saying ? -mike -- 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
