On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:07:43AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 09/10/2013 04:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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. Right, but the idea is that we just only ignore a failure to get a supply if we can usefully run without that supply being present and there's more code there than simply ignoring the error - if the driver can genuinely just ignore all errors and otherwise not do anything different then requesting the regulator in the first place is clearly a waste of time and enabling it would be a waste of power. A driver should only be carrying code for a missing regulator if it can usefully work without it, like the cases where devices can use an internal reference if one is not available. > > 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. Both calls are identical in terms of handling genuine errors. If the driver is just trying to ignore errors it will be more work to use _optional() since it has to cope with the regulator not being present in a system.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
