On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:23:31PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote: > On 08/08/2013 07:01 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > You shouldn't just be ignoring errors here, though there are deployment > > difficulties with making sure a stub regulator is provided. These > > should be getting easier after the next merge window, the stubs will be > > being tweaked slightly to have an "assume it's there" option even when > Oh, really, could you show me the patch, I wish to take a look :) No patch quite yet - the basic idea is that for plain regulator_get() you'll only ever get -EPROBE_DEFER as an error, not -ENODEV. If the regulator is missing in the DT we assume it's there and provide a dummy if the DT doesn't hook it up. If the consumer genuinely wants to see if a supply might not be wired up it should use regulator_get_optional() which is in -next at the minute.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
