On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 09:49:36PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:44:38 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Maybe there is some configuration option, or maybe something needs to be > > configured from user space. I found neither. > Neither would be acceptable to my eyes anyway. Things worked out of the > box before, they should keep working out of the box. They only worked with a debug option turned on and generated warnings every time they were used... that kernel config would've been actively broken for devices that wanted to do anything at all interesting with the regulators and would've been prone to issues with init ordering and races in any cases where there are actually regulators. > > Another possible fix would be to have the regulator core return -ENODEV > > instead of -EPROBE_DEFER on non-dt systems. No idea if this would be acceptable > > or even feasible. > Well, either the regulator subsystem gets fixed (or provides a suitable > API for drivers like lm90 and we update the lm90 driver to use it), or > I'll just revert the problematic commit for now. This is a severe > regression, we just can't leave things that way. It's not an issue in the driver, it's an issue in the combination of the platform and the kernel config. If the regulator API is going to be turned on for the platform then either the platform needs to configure the supplies or it needs to tell the regulator core that it's safe to start using dummy regulators. What is this platform and why does it have the regulator API enabled in the first place?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
