On 7/25/2018 7:24 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Marcel Ziswiler (2018-07-20 00:54:22)
From: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Actually report the error code from devm_regulator_get() which may as
well just be a probe deferral.
Signed-off-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/clk/tegra/clk-dfll.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-dfll.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-dfll.c
index 48ee43734e05..b2123084e175 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-dfll.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-dfll.c
@@ -1609,8 +1609,9 @@ int tegra_dfll_register(struct platform_device *pdev,
td->vdd_reg = devm_regulator_get(td->dev, "vdd-cpu");
if (IS_ERR(td->vdd_reg)) {
- dev_err(td->dev, "couldn't get vdd_cpu regulator\n");
- return PTR_ERR(td->vdd_reg);
+ ret = PTR_ERR(td->vdd_reg);
+ dev_err(td->dev, "couldn't get vdd_cpu regulator: %d\n", ret);
Do you want to know that a probe defer is happening? Usually patches are
sent to make that error path silent.
Just asking as the newbie here, but shouldn't probe deferral be
regulated to dev_debug?
Then pass any other error code as dev_err.
--
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
