Hi Stefan,
On 06/09/16 21:01, Stefan Agner wrote:
> On 2016-09-06 01:22, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:45:19AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>> Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>>> According to the device tree bindings the vcc-supply is optional.
>>
>> This is nonsense unless the device can work without this supply. Given
>> that the supply is called VCC that doesn't seem entirely likely.
>
> Afaik it is kind of a generic device tree binding, I guess the physical
> device can have various appearances and properties...
>
> A quick survey showed several device trees which do not specify
> vcc-supply...
>
> That said, I checked the device at hand, and it actually has a USB PHY
> power supply inputs, but the device tree does not model them.
>
>>>> + nop->vcc = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vcc");
>>>> if (IS_ERR(nop->vcc)) {
>>>> dev_dbg(dev, "Error getting vcc regulator: %ld\n",
>>>> PTR_ERR(nop->vcc));
>>>> - if (needs_vcc)
>>>> - return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>>> + if (needs_vcc || PTR_ERR(nop->vcc) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>>>> + return PTR_ERR(nop->vcc);
>>
>>> does this look okay from a regulator API perspective?
>>
>> That's how to use _get_optional() but it's really unusual that you
>> should be using _get_optional().
>
> Despite the above findings, I still think it is the right thing to do as
> long as we specify vcc-supply to be optional.
>
I think the right behaviour would be that if vcc-supply is specified in the
DT then failure to get that supply is a serious failure and probe should fail.
So the correct fix would be to call devm_regulator_get() only if needs_vcc is true.
cheers,
-roger
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
