Re: [PATCH RESEND v2] rust: regulator: add a bare minimum regulator abstraction

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 03:39:33PM -0300, Daniel Almeida wrote:

> > +    pub fn get(dev: &Device, name: &CStr) -> Result<Self> {
> > +        // SAFETY: It is safe to call `regulator_get()`, on a device pointer
> > +        // received from the C code.
> > +        let inner = from_err_ptr(unsafe { bindings::regulator_get(dev.as_raw(), name.as_ptr()) })?;

> I think it's worth discussing using regulator_get() VS
> regulator_get_optional(). We somehow ended up with the C regulator
> API being more or less orthogonal to other in-kernel C APIs (clocks,
> gpio, reset, LED) with the _optional suffixed version returning
> -ENODEV for a missing regulator (and thus needing explicit handling)
> and the normal version creating a dummy regulator (and a warning).

regulator was first here...

> Considering the Rust API is new, it would be possible to let the
> Rust get() function call regulator_get_optional() instead and then
> introduce something like get_or_dummy() to call the normal
> regulator_get() C function.

> I see reasons in favor and against this. I just want to make sure it
> has been considered before the API is being used, which makes it a
> lot harder to change.

Unless rust somehow magically allows devices to work without power this
would just be broken.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature