On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:50:31 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:19:24AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 01/26/2014 04:51 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 02:04:06PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think I have a better idea: Surround the regulator code, or at least
> > >> its error handling, in the lm90 driver with
> > >
> > >> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)) {
> > >> }
> > >
> > >> Would that be ok ? If yes I'll submit a patch. I'll do the same in
> > >> another driver I am working on.
> > >
> > > That's not going to have the desired effect in cases where DT is built
> > > into the kernel but not in use on the current system (which is a
> > > configuration that gets used) ...
> >
> > The solution to that particular aspect of the problem is the following:
> >
> > if (of_have_populated_dt()) {
> > ...
> >
>
> Turns out that won't help either after Mark's patches to ACPI and
> to the regulator core are applied. Right now I don't have a solution
> that would work for all systems.
>
> I'll leave it up to Jean to decide how to proceed.
I have no idea, really. I have seen multiple patches flying around,
each seems to have its own merits, but I simply don't know which is
going in the direction. I don't know a thing about regulators, OF, DT
etc. so I am really not the right person to make a decision about this.
All I can say is: either someone comes up with a patch set which
properly fixes the regression for all lm90 drivers users, or I will have
to revert commit 3e0f964f.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
