On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 12:05:48PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:15:37PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Instead of just ignoring errors related to regulator getting error out.
> > In case there is no regulator in the device tree, regulator_get() returns
> > the dummy regulator and not an error code, so the change is right for
> > this situation, too.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/imx/chipidea-imx.c | 7 +++++--
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/imx/chipidea-imx.c b/drivers/usb/imx/chipidea-imx.c
> > index 786beede6d89..dd0e3c1a2a58 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/imx/chipidea-imx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/imx/chipidea-imx.c
> > @@ -267,8 +267,11 @@ static int imx_chipidea_probe(struct device_d *dev)
> > }
> >
> > ci->vbus = regulator_get(dev, "vbus");
> > - if (IS_ERR(ci->vbus))
> > - ci->vbus = NULL;
> > + if (IS_ERR(ci->vbus)) {
> > + ret = ERR_PTR(ci->vbus);
> > + dev_err(dev, "Cannot get vbus regulator: %s\n", strerror(-ret));
> > + return ret;
> > + }
>
> Ok, as Marco noted we had regressions in similar cases where we didn't
> have a driver for the regulator, but knew that it was default enabled.
> Therefore I am dropping this patch.
So you prefer "fails on some boards with a missleading (or at least
little helpful) error message" over "fails on some (other) boards with
an obvious error indication"?
I think I would have decided this differently. And IMHO then this should
at least result in a runtime warning instead of being silently
optimistic.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
