Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for otherthan SM0/1 is not fatal

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:47:29AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 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?

I rather suspect Axel is doing this based on code inspection and review
rather than testing (either that or he has an enormous lab somewhere
full of all sorts of hardware!) - what he's saying is that the error
handling here seems excessive.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature