2013/2/20 Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org>: > On 02/16/2013 04:50 AM, Axel Lin wrote: >> Ignore the setting and show "Only SM0/SM1 can set slew rate" warning is >> enough, >> then we can return 0 instead of -EINVAL in >> tps6586x_regulator_set_slew_rate(). >> >> Otherwise, probe() fails. > > Why does probe() fail; what is trying to set a slew rate on a regulator > that doesn't support it? At least a few days ago in linux-next, this > patch wasn't needed AFAIK. Is the problem something new? >
Oh, sorry for my poor Engilish. I mean probe fails because of having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 seems not necessary. In tps6586x_regulator_set_slew_rate() it uses dev_warn rather than dev_err for the default case. We can either using "dev_warn with return 0" or use "dev_err with return -EINVAL" in tps6586x_regulator_set_slew_rate(). It looks to me that having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 should be ok if it actually is harmless ( because we can just ignore the setting ). BTW, I read the code but I don't have this hardware. Axel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/