Am Freitag, 9. Oktober 2015, 13:11:21 schrieb Doug Anderson: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> wrote: > >> Dough, Heiko, > >> > >> This patchset seems to be causing a boot regression for > >> exynos5800-peach-pi [1]. > >> > >> Apparently, the vmmc regulator doesn't exist for one of the controller > >> but vqmmc is. This leads to the following NULL pointer exception. > > > > Ugh. Hrm, it didn't used to be possible for vmmc to be NULL. :-/ It > > > > changed in v3.16: > > 4d1f52f mmc: core: Improve support for deferred regulators > > > > ...and I didn't notice it (most of my development is done on 3.14). :( > > > > > > Is it sensible to have vqmmc without vmmc. One option would be to > > change mmc_regulator_get_supply() to not even bother trying to get > > vqmmc if vmmc is not there. > > > > Another option would be to just totally fail mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc() > > always if vmmc is an error. ...or assume that any bogus vmmc (either > > vmmc is an error or regulator_get_voltage(vmmc) returns an error) is > > 3.3V? > > > > > > I guess the safest is to assume that bogus vmmc means 3.3V... > > Ah, doh. Just noticed Ulf's suggestion all the way at the bottom of > the crash info, which I somehow missed before. Yes, let's do that. > Heiko: are you going to re-post? definitly :-) . I was just travelling back from ELCE today, otherwise I would've done that directly today. So I'm hoping to get that done tomorrow. Heiko
