From: Mark Brown broonie@linaro.org
Since the cpufreq-cpu0 driver is capable of coping without a software controllable regulator and would be confused by a dummy one it should use devm_regulator_get_optional() to ensure no dummy is provided.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown broonie@linaro.org ---
devm_regulator_get_optional() is a new API in my tree for -next, is it OK to merge this patch via that branch?
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c index 09cd3a7..b946ac7 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) cpu_dev = &pdev->dev; cpu_dev->of_node = np;
- cpu_reg = devm_regulator_get(cpu_dev, "cpu0"); + cpu_reg = devm_regulator_get_optional(cpu_dev, "cpu0"); if (IS_ERR(cpu_reg)) { /* * If cpu0 regulator supply node is present, but regulator is
On 9 August 2013 23:38, Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org wrote:
From: Mark Brown broonie@linaro.org
Since the cpufreq-cpu0 driver is capable of coping without a software controllable regulator and would be confused by a dummy one it should use devm_regulator_get_optional() to ensure no dummy is provided.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown broonie@linaro.org
devm_regulator_get_optional() is a new API in my tree for -next, is it OK to merge this patch via that branch?
I don't see a issue with it, by Rafael has the authority :)
Over that it would have been useful if we could have this patch as part of the series you posted for defining devm_regulator_get_optional(), and so we could have seen what's that patch is doing..
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:52:00AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Over that it would have been useful if we could have this patch as part of the series you posted for defining devm_regulator_get_optional(), and so we could have seen what's that patch is doing..
It's in -next. There's rather a lot of regulator users in the kernel.
On Friday, August 09, 2013 07:08:03 PM Mark Brown wrote:
From: Mark Brown broonie@linaro.org
Since the cpufreq-cpu0 driver is capable of coping without a software controllable regulator and would be confused by a dummy one it should use devm_regulator_get_optional() to ensure no dummy is provided.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown broonie@linaro.org
devm_regulator_get_optional() is a new API in my tree for -next, is it OK to merge this patch via that branch?
Sure, please go ahead.
Thanks, Rafael
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c index 09cd3a7..b946ac7 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) cpu_dev = &pdev->dev; cpu_dev->of_node = np;
- cpu_reg = devm_regulator_get(cpu_dev, "cpu0");
- cpu_reg = devm_regulator_get_optional(cpu_dev, "cpu0"); if (IS_ERR(cpu_reg)) { /*
- If cpu0 regulator supply node is present, but regulator is
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
-
Mark Brown -
Rafael J. Wysocki -
Viresh Kumar