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

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Jani,

On Thursday, 11 January 2018 16:31:59 EET Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Laurent Pinchart 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.

That's correct, but I still think that would make the API clearer. I don't 
want to block this patch until we make such a change, but it's a good 
opportunity to discuss it. I'd like to know what Mark's opinion is.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart