On Wednesday 19 February 2014 02:04 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
Current code uses devm_regulator_register() so the we don't need to explicitly
call regulator_unregister() in .remove.
And then we don't need to save rdev pointer to tps->rdev[id].
Acked-by: Keerthy
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin
---
Current code uses devm_regulator_register() so the we don't need to explicitly
call regulator_unregister() in .remove.
And then we don't need to save rdev pointer to tps->rdev[id].
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin
---
drivers/regulator/tps65218-regulator.c | 18 --
1 file changed, 18
Current code uses devm_regulator_register() so the we don't need to explicitly
call regulator_unregister() in .remove.
And then we don't need to save rdev pointer to tps->rdev[id].
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin
---
drivers/regulator/tps65218-regulator.c | 18 --
1 file changed, 18
Current code uses devm_regulator_register() so the we don't need to explicitly
call regulator_unregister() in .remove.
And then we don't need to save rdev pointer to tps-rdev[id].
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin axel@ingics.com
---
drivers/regulator/tps65218-regulator.c | 18 --
1
Current code uses devm_regulator_register() so the we don't need to explicitly
call regulator_unregister() in .remove.
And then we don't need to save rdev pointer to tps-rdev[id].
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin axel@ingics.com
---
drivers/regulator/tps65218-regulator.c | 18 --
1
On Wednesday 19 February 2014 02:04 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
Current code uses devm_regulator_register() so the we don't need to explicitly
call regulator_unregister() in .remove.
And then we don't need to save rdev pointer to tps-rdev[id].
Acked-by: Keerthy j-keer...@ti.com
Signed-off-by: Axel
6 matches
Mail list logo
