Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for otherthan SM0/1 is not fatal
From: Stephen Warren
Date: Tue Feb 19 2013 - 21:13:01 EST
On 02/19/2013 05:53 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
> 2013/2/20 Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> 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 regulator
>> that doesn't support it? At least a few days ago in linux-next, this
>> patch wasn't needed AFAIK. Is the problem something new?
> Oh, sorry for my poor Engilish.
> I mean probe fails because of having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1
> seems not necessary.
> In tps6586x_regulator_set_slew_rate() it uses dev_warn rather than dev_err
> for the default case.
> We can either using "dev_warn with return 0" or use "dev_err with
> return -EINVAL"
> in tps6586x_regulator_set_slew_rate().
Oh right, I understand. s/dev_warn/dev_err/ seems more appropriate to
me, I think.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/