On 02/19/2013 05:53 PM, Axel Lin wrote: > 2013/2/20 Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org>: >> 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? >> > > Oh, sorry for my poor Engilish. > I mean probe fails because of having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 > seems not necessary. > > In tps6586x_regulator_set_slew_rate() it uses dev_warn rather than dev_err > for the default case. > We can either using "dev_warn with return 0" or use "dev_err with > return -EINVAL" > in tps6586x_regulator_set_slew_rate().
Oh right, I understand. s/dev_warn/dev_err/ seems more appropriate to me, I think. -- 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/
