On 29/09/2023 13:03, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
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.
The code before this change calls devm_regulator_get_optional() which
returns -ENODEV too, right ? But there is no special case for this error.
So this change uses devm_regulator_get_enable_optional() and handle the
ENODEV as a non-error, so there is a change in the behavior.
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
--
<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
