On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:47:29AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 02/16/2013 04:50 AM, Axel Lin wrote:
> > Ignore the setting and show "Only SM0/SM1 can set slew rate" warning is > > enough, > > then we can return 0 instead of -EINVAL in > > tps6586x_regulator_set_slew_rate(). > > > > Otherwise, probe() fails. > Why does probe() fail; what is trying to set a slew rate on a regulator > that doesn't support it? At least a few days ago in linux-next, this > patch wasn't needed AFAIK. Is the problem something new? I rather suspect Axel is doing this based on code inspection and review rather than testing (either that or he has an enormous lab somewhere full of all sorts of hardware!) - what he's saying is that the error handling here seems excessive.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
