[PATCH v4 05/17] regulator: Assume probe deferral instead of missing regulator

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Don't report requested regulator (via of_regulator_get()) as
non-existent if said regulator is missing from regulator list. Instead
report it as probe deferral to give other, unprobed, drivers a chance
to resolve this.

Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/regulator/core.c | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index 795dcdb8c1..4ca035ae94 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -227,7 +227,12 @@ static struct regulator_internal *of_regulator_get(struct device_d *dev, const c
 		}
 	}
 
-	ri = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
+	/*
+	 * It is possible that regulator we are looking for will be
+	 * added in future initcalls, so, instead of reporting a
+	 * complete failure report probe deferral
+	 */
+	ri = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
 out:
 	free(propname);
 
-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Embedded]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux