> > When the CONFIG_REGULATOR is disabled there will be some warnings > > printed out. > > A little confused by the title. But after looking at the comments, is the > patch just gonna add some debug info for the case when the > CONFIG_REGULATOR's been un-selected? > > Well first, I think at least the title should be more explicit. > And second, the necessity of this patch might just a little... > if CONFIG_REGULATOR is required to power it up, why not turn it on. >
Sorry, I will add some more detail and explicit description about this patch. In VF610 board there has not Power Manager module. So if the CONFIG_REGULATOR is turned on the SGTL5000 cannot be brought up correctly. If it's turned off there will also some other errors for the SGTL5000 codec driver using the CONFIG_REGULATOR mirco not very correctly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li <li.xi...@freescale.com> > > --- > > sound/soc/codecs/sgtl5000.c | 13 ++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/sgtl5000.c b/sound/soc/codecs/sgtl5000.c > > index 1f4093f..4e2e4c9 100644 > > --- a/sound/soc/codecs/sgtl5000.c > > +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/sgtl5000.c > > @@ -883,14 +883,19 @@ static int ldo_regulator_register(struct > snd_soc_codec *codec, > > struct regulator_init_data *init_data, > > int voltage) > > { > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SND_SOC_FSL_SGTL5000 > > Why there's FSL_SGTL5000 here? Not supposed to be CONFIG_REGULATOR? > I will enhance this patch later. Using CONFIG_SND_SOC_FSL_SGTL5000 instead of CONFIG_REGULATOR here just for not affecting other boards. > > static int ldo_regulator_remove(struct snd_soc_codec *codec) { > > return 0; > > } > > + > > I don't think it's fair to add a meaningless line. It doesn't make any > sense according to the title and comments. > I will drop it later. > > #endif > > > > /* > > @@ -1137,6 +1142,7 @@ static int sgtl5000_resume(struct snd_soc_codec > > *codec) #define sgtl5000_resume NULL > > #endif /* CONFIG_SUSPEND */ > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR > > The inline regulator-related functions are already have REGULATOR > dependency. > Is that necessary to put an additional one here? > If not, the " warning: 'XXXXX' defined but not used [-Wunused-function] " log will print out. This patch will be enhanced later. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev