On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 07:28:09PM +0100, Denis Carikli wrote: [...] > diff --git a/drivers/staging/imx-drm/parallel-display.c > b/drivers/staging/imx-drm/parallel-display.c [...] > @@ -260,6 +275,13 @@ static int imx_pd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > if (ret) > return ret; > > + imxpd->disp_reg = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "display"); > + if (PTR_ERR(imxpd->disp_reg) == -EPROBE_DEFER) > + return -EPROBE_DEFER; > + > + if (IS_ERR(imxpd->disp_reg)) > + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "Operating without display regulator.\n");
I don't think this is necessary. There is code in the regulator core nowadays that supplies a dummy regulator if one hasn't been hooked up in devicetree explicitly. So any error that you get at this point is likely a valid one rather than just a missing regulator. The advantage is that you no longer have to check at every step of the way that the regulator is valid before calling the regulator API. Thierry
pgpOzaX7uYTJz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
