On 02/19/2013 11:26 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > 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!)
Makes sense. > - what he's saying is that the error handling here seems > excessive. Why shouldn't the driver return an error if it's asked to do something that's impossible? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
