On 29.09.2023 12:46, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 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
Because this what devm_regulator_get_enable_optional() returns if no
regulator is defined. I also got confused by this a few times.
>
>> 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;
> }
>
> ??
>
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
