lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 4/7] thermal: exynos: simplify regulator (de)initialization
From
On 26/09/2023 13:02, Mateusz Majewski wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> This is not equivalent. If regulator is provided and enable fails, the
>> old code is nicely returning error. Now, it will print misleading
>> message - failed to get regulator - and continue.
>>
>> While this simplifies the code, it ignores important running condition -
>> having regulator enabled.
>
> Would doing this be correct?
>
> ret = devm_regulator_get_enable_optional(&pdev->dev, "vtmu");
> switch (ret) {
> case 0:
> case -ENODEV:

Not sure to understand why -NODEV is not an error

> break;
> case -EPROBE_DEFER:
> return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> default:
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get enabled regulator: %d\n",
> ret);
> return ret;
> }

ret = devm_regulator_get_enable_optional(&pdev->dev, "vtmu");
if (ret < 0) {
if (ret != EPROBE_DEFER)
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get enabled regulator: %d\n", ret);
return ret;
}

??

--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-09-29 12:46    [W:0.058 / U:0.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site