On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 03:25:44PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote: > On 07/05/2012 03:20 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > >>Oh, that is a mistake of mine then. Driver probe should continue if > >>no regulator is declared (but should fail if some other error > >>occured). I want to maintain backward compatibility with current > >>users of the driver, so regulator/gpio specification should be > >>optional. > > > >I think the only way doing this is to add a flag to platform_data. I > >don't know if that's accepted though. > > I thought about just checking if devm_get_regulator returned -ENODEV > and happily continue if that was the case, assuming no regulator was > declared. And that's the problem. The get_regulator won't return -ENODEV. It will return -EPROBE_DEFER which tells you nothing about whether a regulator will ever be available or not. Having a flag in platform data would be fine with me, but I know other people think differently. BTW in devicetree this flag implicitely exists with the power-supply property. The regulator core could look if a power-supply property is given and - if it is given, a regulator is mandatory and the core either returns the regulator or -EPROBE_DEFER if it cannot find one. - If it is not given, there is no regulator and the core could either return a special error code or a dummy regulator. Right now the regulator core will just return -EPROBE_DEFER in both cases. This could easily be changed in the regulator core. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
