On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 03:44:24PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> On 22/04/16 14:53, Mark Brown wrote:
> > We need to only *fail* in the bypass case.
> OK. So this is what I have now. Is it weird to return EPROBE_DEFER in
> _regulator_get_voltage()? If so, I could add a test for bypass in the
>
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 03:44:24PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> On 22/04/16 14:53, Mark Brown wrote:
> > We need to only *fail* in the bypass case.
> OK. So this is what I have now. Is it weird to return EPROBE_DEFER in
> _regulator_get_voltage()? If so, I could add a test for bypass in the
>
On 22/04/16 14:53, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:26:57PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
>> OK. Sorry if I have misunderstood you here, but this sounds more like
>> Thierry's initial proposal [0] but ignoring the any errors returned (and
>> we need
On 22/04/16 14:53, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:26:57PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
>> OK. Sorry if I have misunderstood you here, but this sounds more like
>> Thierry's initial proposal [0] but ignoring the any errors returned (and
>> we need
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:26:57PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> OK. Sorry if I have misunderstood you here, but this sounds more like
> Thierry's initial proposal [0] but ignoring the any errors returned (and
> we need to fix-up the locking in this patch). In the discussion that
Yes!
> followed I
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:26:57PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> OK. Sorry if I have misunderstood you here, but this sounds more like
> Thierry's initial proposal [0] but ignoring the any errors returned (and
> we need to fix-up the locking in this patch). In the discussion that
Yes!
> followed I
On 22/04/16 11:48, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 05:12:00PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
>> A regulator that is in bypass will fail to be registered because we will
>> attempt to get the voltage of the regulator (ie. it's bypass voltage)
>> before
On 22/04/16 11:48, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 05:12:00PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
>> A regulator that is in bypass will fail to be registered because we will
>> attempt to get the voltage of the regulator (ie. it's bypass voltage)
>> before
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 05:12:00PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> A regulator that is in bypass will fail to be registered because we will
> attempt to get the voltage of the regulator (ie. it's bypass voltage)
> before the supply for the regulator has been resolved. Therefore, when
> getting the
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 05:12:00PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> A regulator that is in bypass will fail to be registered because we will
> attempt to get the voltage of the regulator (ie. it's bypass voltage)
> before the supply for the regulator has been resolved. Therefore, when
> getting the
The call to set_machine_constraints() in regulator_register(), will
attempt to get the voltage for the regulator.
A regulator that is in bypass will fail to be registered because we will
attempt to get the voltage of the regulator (ie. it's bypass voltage)
before the supply for the regulator has
The call to set_machine_constraints() in regulator_register(), will
attempt to get the voltage for the regulator.
A regulator that is in bypass will fail to be registered because we will
attempt to get the voltage of the regulator (ie. it's bypass voltage)
before the supply for the regulator has
12 matches
Mail list logo
