Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for otherthan SM0/1 is not fatal
From: Axel Lin
Date: Tue Feb 19 2013 - 19:53:44 EST
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
It looks to me that having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 should be ok
if it actually is harmless ( because we can just ignore the setting ).
BTW, I read the code but I don't have this hardware.
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/