On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 08:40:20AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On 03/08/2015 08:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 02:45:00PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >> The thing is that _regulator_is_enabled() used to return -EINVAL if
> >> the rdev didn't have an .is_enabled callback but that changed in
> >> commit 9a7f6a4c6edc8 ("regulator: Assume regulators are enabled if
> >> they don't report anything") and now returns 1 in that case. But
> >> _regulator_enable() was not changed and is still checking for -EINVAL
> >> which seems to me like a left over after the mentioned commit.
> > You mean _do_enable(), not _enable() here. It's not really a leftover
> No, I meant _enable() here. What I said is that _enable() is checking
> if -EINVAL was returned by _is_enabled():
Then we have an abstraction problem if we're trying to do things in
plain _enable() - _do_enable() is supposed to be hiding all this stuff.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
