> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 02:10:16PM -0700, Andrew Chew wrote:
> > > > +static void pwm_backlight_enable(struct backlight_device *bl) {
> > > > + struct pwm_bl_data *pb = dev_get_drvdata(&bl->dev);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Bail if we are already enabled. */
> > > > + if (pb->enabled)
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + pwm_enable(pb->pwm);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (regulator_enable(pb->enable_supply) != 0)
> > >
> > > I would loose the '!= 0'
> >
> > I think I prefer the '!= 0'. Without it, it looks at first glance
> > like regulator_enable() is following boolean semantics, so it reads
> > kind of weird. But I'll defer to Thierry on this one. Thierry,
> > what's your preference?
>
> Why not assign the return value of regulator_enable() to a variable, for
> instance "err", and make that part of the warning message so that people will
> have a better chance to diagnose what's going wrong?
That's a good idea. I'll have that modification in the next patch series that I
post.
--
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
