Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-19 Thread Stephen Warren
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(). >>> >>>

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-19 Thread Axel Lin
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()

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-19 Thread Mark Brown
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

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-19 Thread Stephen Warren
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 >>>

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-19 Thread Mark Brown
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(). > > > >

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-19 Thread 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() fail; what is trying to set a slew rate on

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-19 Thread 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() fail; what is trying to set a slew rate on a

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-19 Thread Mark Brown
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()

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-19 Thread Stephen Warren
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

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-19 Thread Mark Brown
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

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-19 Thread Axel Lin
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()

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-19 Thread Stephen Warren
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().

[PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-16 Thread Axel Lin
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(+),

[PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

2013-02-16 Thread Axel Lin
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