On 09/10/2013 04:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:13:56PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 09/09/2013 09:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>> Earlier comments suggest that this is not the intended use case >>> for regulator_get_optional(). > > That's right. > >> Isn't the issue only whether the optional aspect of the regulator >> is implemented by: > >> a) regulator_get_optional() returning failure, then the driver >> having to check for that and either using or not-using the >> regulator. > >> b) regulator_get_optional() returning a dummy regulator >> automatically when none is specified in DT or the regulator >> lookup table, and hence the driver can always call >> regulator_enable/disable on the returned value. > > No. There are a couple of issues here. One is that we don't want > to litter all drivers with conditional code to check if they > actually got the regulator and so on, that's just pointless make > work on the part of consumers. So that's exactly the difference between (a) and (b) above. > The other is that just ignoring errors is generally terrible > practice which we don't want to encourage - ignoring the specific > case where nothing is provided and the system has control of that > is one thing but just ignoring any error is another. Yes, obviously the code somewhere needs to distinguish between missing-so-use-a-dummy, and specified-but-in-a-broken-way. Doesn't regulator_get_optional() already distinguish those two cases? Perhaps that's the enhancement to regulator_get_optional() that you were requesting. -- 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
