On 3 June 2014 21:18, Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org> wrote: > No, as I've explained repeatedly NULL is a perfectly valid regulator and
Okay, its been checked at multiple places already and that's obviously wrong then. > that's not going to work reliably. As I've previously requested please > think about what happens to cpufreq if we fail to ramp voltages. Okay, so here is the scenario: - driver is generic (like cpufreq-cpu0) and some user platforms may have regulator support and others might not.. - For platforms with regulators support, we _must_ check if the voltage change is successful or not and fail if regulator_set_voltage() failed. - But for platforms without regulators support (CONFIG_REGULATOR=n), regulator_get() will return NULL (a valid regulator though) and regulator_set_voltage() will fail. Because the platform doesn't care much about regulators it must go on and change frequency as if nothing happened. How can we achieve both these requirements by a generic piece of code? The only way I could think of currently is by returning something special like -ENOSYS from regulator_set_voltage() when regulators aren't configured in kernel and check return value of regulator_set_voltage() against this.. This also holds true for regulator_get_voltage() which is returning -EINVAL currently.. Please share if you have some other solution in mind.. -- 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/
