Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] thermal: exynos: simplify regulator (de)initialization

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 29/09/2023 13:03, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> On 29.09.2023 12:46, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > On 26/09/2023 13:02, Mateusz Majewski wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > This is not equivalent. If regulator is provided and enable fails, the
> > > > old code is nicely returning error. Now, it will print misleading
> > > > message - failed to get regulator - and continue.
> > > >
> > > > While this simplifies the code, it ignores important running
> > > > condition -
> > > > having regulator enabled.
> > >
> > > Would doing this be correct?
> > >
> > > ret = devm_regulator_get_enable_optional(&pdev->dev, "vtmu");
> > > switch (ret) {
> > > case 0:
> > > case -ENODEV:
> >
> > Not sure to understand why -NODEV is not an error
>
>
> Because this what devm_regulator_get_enable_optional() returns if no
> regulator is defined. I also got confused by this a few times.

The code before this change calls devm_regulator_get_optional() which 
returns -ENODEV too, right ? But there is no special case for this error.

So this change uses devm_regulator_get_enable_optional() and handle the 
ENODEV as a non-error, so there is a change in the behavior.


> > >      break;
> > > case -EPROBE_DEFER:
> > >      return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > > default:
> > >      dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get enabled regulator: %d\n",
> > >          ret);
> > >      return ret;
> > > }
> >
> > ret = devm_regulator_get_enable_optional(&pdev->dev, "vtmu");
> > if (ret < 0) {
> >      if (ret != EPROBE_DEFER)
> >          dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get enabled regulator: %d\n",
> > ret);
> >      return ret;
> > }
> >
> > ??
> Best regards

--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog