Re: [PATCH] drm/panel: lvds: Handle the optional regulator case properly

[Jani Nikula]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My preference, however, would be for devm_regulator_get_optional() to return 
> NULL when no regulator is present. The current implementation returns -ENODEV 
> in multiple cases, making it impossible to properly discriminate between 
> having no regulator and not being able to get the regulator due to an error.

Just a word of warning, IS_ERR(NULL) is false, and your proposed change
would apparently require quite a churn all over the kernel.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center