On 02/19/2013 05:53 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
> 2013/2/20 Stephen Warren :
>> 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().
>>>
>>>
2013/2/20 Stephen Warren :
> 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()
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:32:50PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/19/2013 11:26 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > - what he's saying is that the error handling here seems
> > excessive.
> Why shouldn't the driver return an error if it's asked to do something
> that's impossible?
I'm having a hard
On 02/19/2013 11:26 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:47:29AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> 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
>>>
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:47:29AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 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().
> >
> >
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
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
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:47:29AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
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()
On 02/19/2013 11:26 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:47:29AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
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
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:32:50PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/19/2013 11:26 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
- what he's saying is that the error handling here seems
excessive.
Why shouldn't the driver return an error if it's asked to do something
that's impossible?
I'm having a hard time
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()
On 02/19/2013 05:53 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
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().
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.
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin
---
drivers/regulator/tps6586x-regulator.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+),
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.
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin axel@ingics.com
---
drivers/regulator/tps6586x-regulator.c |2 +-
1 file
14 matches
Mail list logo