On 26/09/2023 13:02, Mateusz Majewski wrote:
Hi,
This is not equivalent. If regulator is provided and enable fails, the
old code is nicely returning error. Now, it will print misleading
message - failed to get regulator - and continue.
While this simplifies the code, it ignores important running condition -
having regulator enabled.
Would doing this be correct?
ret = devm_regulator_get_enable_optional(&pdev->dev, "vtmu");
switch (ret) {
case 0:
case -ENODEV:
Not sure to understand why -NODEV is not an error
break;
case -EPROBE_DEFER:
return -EPROBE_DEFER;
default:
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get enabled regulator: %d\n",
ret);
return ret;
}
ret = devm_regulator_get_enable_optional(&pdev->dev, "vtmu");
if (ret < 0) {
if (ret != EPROBE_DEFER)
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get enabled regulator: %d\n", ret);
return ret;
}
??
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
