mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To: Alex Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@avionic-design.de>,
	"linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm-backlight: add regulator and GPIO support
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:02:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120705080234.GQ30009@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FF5459F.5090201@nvidia.com>

On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 04:43:27PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 07/05/2012 03:47 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >>I thought about just checking if devm_get_regulator returned -ENODEV
> >>and happily continue if that was the case, assuming no regulator was
> >>declared.
> >
> >And that's the problem. The get_regulator won't return -ENODEV. It will
> >return -EPROBE_DEFER which tells you nothing about whether a regulator
> >will ever be available or not.
> >
> >Having a flag in platform data would be fine with me, but I know other
> >people think differently.
> >
> >BTW in devicetree this flag implicitely exists with the power-supply
> >property.
> 
> One could actually question whether the whole regulator/gpio thing
> should be supported at all with platform data. The platform
> interface can use the function hooks in order to implement whatever
> behavior it wants when the light needs to be powered on and off. The
> reason for introducing optional regulator/gpio parameters is because
> the DT cannot use these. Since I have no plan to remove these
> function hooks, making the regulator/gpio option available in
> platform data might be redundant. Any thought about this?

sounds good.

> 
> >Right now the regulator core will just return -EPROBE_DEFER in both
> >cases. This could easily be changed in the regulator core.
> 
> Could this be because the regulator core cannot make the difference
> between a not-yet-available regulator and a missing one?

It could. In regulator_dev_lookup we have:

		if (node) {
			...
		} else {
			/*
			 * If we couldn't even get the node then it's
			 * not just that the device didn't register
			 * yet, there's no node and we'll never
			 * succeed.
			 */
			*ret = -ENODEV;
		}

So here the regulator core knows that there is no regulator and never
will be. All that needs to be done is to make _regulator_get look at
that value.
There may be some side effects if we just return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) when
regulator_dev_lookup returns -ENODEV. Maybe Mark has some comments to
this.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-07-05  8:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-29 13:22 Alexandre Courbot
2012-06-29 16:04 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-30  3:54   ` Alex Courbot
2012-06-30 18:37 ` Thierry Reding
2012-07-02  3:35   ` Alexandre Courbot
2012-07-02  6:46     ` Thierry Reding
2012-07-02  7:18       ` Alexandre Courbot
2012-07-04 10:48 ` Sascha Hauer
2012-07-04 12:26   ` Alex Courbot
2012-07-04 12:27     ` Mark Brown
2012-07-04 13:00     ` Sascha Hauer
2012-07-04 15:14       ` Alex Courbot
2012-07-04 15:24         ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05  2:36           ` Alex Courbot
2012-07-05  6:20             ` Sascha Hauer
2012-07-05  6:25               ` Alex Courbot
2012-07-05  6:47                 ` Sascha Hauer
2012-07-05  7:43                   ` Alex Courbot
2012-07-05  7:57                     ` Thierry Reding
2012-07-05  8:12                       ` Alex Courbot
2012-07-05 16:03                         ` Stephen Warren
2012-07-09  5:19                           ` Jingoo Han
2012-07-09  6:12                             ` Alex Courbot
2012-07-05  8:02                     ` Sascha Hauer [this message]
2012-07-05 10:41                       ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 10:39                     ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 10:37                 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-04 20:26         ` Sascha Hauer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120705080234.GQ30009@pengutronix.de \
    --to=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=acourbot@nvidia.com \
    --cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=thierry.reding@avionic-design.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®