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

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/19/2013 11:26 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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!)

Makes sense.

> - what he's saying is that the error handling here seems
> excessive.

Why shouldn't the driver return an error if it's asked to do something
that's impossible?
--
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/