Messages in this thread | | | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2.6.28-rc7] regulator: catch some registration errors | Date | Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:45:04 -0800 |
| |
On Tuesday 02 December 2008, Mark Brown wrote: > > Also make sure the consumer device is provided. It's nonsensical > > to omit these, and not a documented part of the interface. Since > > no code in mainline does such stuff, this is just anti-oops medicine. > > ...we do still need to cater for cpufreq and other struct deviceless > consumers. If you can guarantee that no such consumers will ever exist > then great but we're not there yet.
Just for the record: my feeling is that since no such drivers currently use the regulator framework, it's wrong to design-in breakage to support them.
When someone writes a cpufreq driver that uses the regulator framework, they can arrange to provide the relevant "struct device *" to make that work neatly.
Meanwhile, I still think the regulator framework should be using driver model messages. Since the only reason not to use them is to support those non-existent drivers.
- Dave
p.s. Glad to see at least part of this patch get merged, even if related diagnostics are lacking.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |