On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:10:44AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 16 February 2016 01:56:16 Mark Brown wrote:
> > No, NULL is explicitly not something you can substitute in,
> > essentially all the users are just not bothering to implement error
> > checking and we don't want to encourage that. The set of use cases
> > where we legitimately have optional supplies is very small, much smaller
> > than clocks, because it makes the electrical engineering a lot harder.
> I must have misinterpreted the idea behind that API as well then.
> From this function definition:
> static inline struct regulator *__must_check regulator_get(struct device *dev,
> const char *id)
> {
> /* Nothing except the stubbed out regulator API should be
> * looking at the value except to check if it is an error
> * value. Drivers are free to handle NULL specifically by
> * skipping all regulator API calls, but they don't have to.
> * Drivers which don't, should make sure they properly handle
> * corner cases of the API, such as regulator_get_voltage()
> * returning 0.
> */
> return NULL;
> }
This is the stubbed regulator API which is only ever used with the stub
regulator API, it uses NULL to give a non-error pointer it can return to
well written callers so they don't know they are running with the stubs.
We are explicitly using NULL because callers should treat it as a valid
regulator.
> my reading was that the expected behavior in any driver was:
> * call regulator_get()
> * if IS_ERR(), fail device probe function, never use invalid
> pointer other than PTR_ERR()
> * if NULL, and regulator is required, fail probe so we never
> use the regulator
No, drivers should never look at the value of the pointer other than to
check it for error. If there is a problem of any kind an error will be
returned.
> * if NULL, and regulators are optional, continue with the NULL
> value.
No, we always return an error pointer if we fail to get a regulator.
The difference with optional regulators is in how we handle the
situation where we have full constraints and a regulator is not mapped
in, normally we assume there must be one with no software control but we
need to work around buggy bindings as the device would be non-functional
without power.
> * drivers never look into the regulator pointer, and only
> pass it into regulator APIs which can cope with the NULL
> value when CONFIG_REGULATOR is disabled.
> That would be similar to what we have for clocks. Which part of
> my interpretation is wrong?
See above.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
