Re: [lm-sensors] lm90 driver no longer working on PCs in 3.13

[Guenter Roeck]

On 01/26/2014 01:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 01/26/2014 12:49 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:44:38 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 01/26/2014 12:13 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > The regulator code changed with 3.13; the dummy regulator no longer exists,
> > > and the functionality it provided is supposed to be handled automatically.
> > > But that only really works on devicetree based systems and otherwise returns
> > > -EPROBE_DEFER as mentioned above.
> > >
> > > Maybe there is some configuration option, or maybe something needs to be
> > > configured from user space. I found neither.
> >
> > Neither would be acceptable to my eyes anyway. Things worked out of the
> > box before, they should keep working out of the box.
> >
> > > In the first case, we should create
> > > a dependency for the LM90 driver; in the latter case, we would have to make sure
> > > that it is well documented (I'd grumble on that, though - it would result in
> > > never ending trouble for us, having to repeatedly explain how this is now
> > > supposed to work).
> > >
> > > Another possible fix would be to have the regulator core return -ENODEV
> > > instead of -EPROBE_DEFER on non-dt systems. No idea if this would be acceptable
> > > or even feasible.
> >
> > Well, either the regulator subsystem gets fixed (or provides a suitable
> > API for drivers like lm90 and we update the lm90 driver to use it), or
> > I'll just revert the problematic commit for now. This is a severe
> > regression, we just can't leave things that way.
>
> Maybe your configuration has CONFIG_REGULATORS disabled. Ubuntu has it enabled.
> I don't know about others.
>
> I agree, we may have to revert the patch. I don't think the regulator API works well
> enough in non-dt systems to be able to use it in such systems. Mark's expectation
> that regulator support must be disabled if regulators are not fully declared in non-dt
> systems doesn't seem very useful nor really feasible.

I think I have a better idea: Surround the regulator code, or at least its error handling,
in the lm90 driver with
	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)) {
	}

Would that be ok ? If yes I'll submit a patch. I'll do the same in another driver
I am working on.

Guenter

--
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/