From: Bill Gatliff <bgat@billgatliff.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Expose regulator:set_consumer_device_supply()?
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:15:23 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=KxNRktf3SOzQKK-stu6i+g8n2EA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110426161516.GC11848@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Mark:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Mark Brown
<broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
>
> No. As I said in the text you've quoted above you can also specify the
> device mapping using the dev_name() of the device.
Aah! I see it now--- the regulator_consumer_supply structure will
take either the consumer's struct device pointer, or the device name
of the consumer's struct device. The device name can easily be
predicted (controlled, in fact) before the consumer itself is
registered; in the case of i2c devices, it's the bus-id, i.e.
"0-0038".
Now it all fits together for me. Thanks for your patience!
> It means you get reams of code in drivers conditionally using the
> regulator API, all of which adds needless complexity all over the tree
> as people invariably make everything conditional on the regulator not
> being there when they shouldn't. This then means you also end up with
> no meaningful error handling, all errors just get silently eaten.
Now I think I see your point: better to have drivers check the result
of regulator_get() themselves, rather than test a pointer coming in
with the platform data. And since regulators are often registered as
platform devices themselves, there is no way to get a valid result
from regulator_get() in early-init board code anyway.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
bgat@billgatliff.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-26 21:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-26 2:16 Expose regulator:set_consumer_device_supply()? Bill Gatliff
2011-04-26 2:25 ` Bill Gatliff
2011-04-26 8:34 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-26 8:33 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-26 15:33 ` Bill Gatliff
2011-04-26 16:15 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-26 21:15 ` Bill Gatliff [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='BANLkTi=KxNRktf3SOzQKK-stu6i+g8n2EA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=bgat@billgatliff.com \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).