Re: [PATCH] rfkill: Regulator consumer driver for rfkill

[Antonio Ospite]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:11:33 +0900
Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:21:19AM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> 
> > +	tristate "Generic rfkill regulator driver"
> > +	depends on RFKILL || !RFKILL
> 
> That looks *odd*.

Taken from Documentation/rfkill.txt section 3.  Kernel API.
I guess I can drop it if we want to be stricter and just require RFKILL
to be enabled. Johannes?

> Otherwise this looks fine from a regulator API point
> of view.  You use an exclusive get() so you could get away without
> remembering the enable state as nothing else could hold the device open
> but there's no harm in doing so and it's defensive against silly
> constraints that force the regulator on.
> 

Thanks Mark.

Regards,
   Antonio

-- 
Antonio Ospite
http://ao2.it

PGP public key ID: 0x4553B001

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature