Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 May 2013 11:38:19 +0100 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] mmc: mmci: Ensure return value of regulator_enable() is checked |
| |
On Fri, 03 May 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 3 May 2013 10:16, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 03 May 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > >> On 2 May 2013 17:48, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > This patch suppresses the warning below: > >> > > >> > drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c: In function ‘mmci_set_ios’: > >> > drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c:1165:20: warning: ignoring return value of > >> > ‘regulator_enable’, declared with attribute warn_unused_result > >> > [-Wunused-result] > >> > > >> > Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> > >> > Cc: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org> > >> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > >> > --- > >> > drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 9 +++++++-- > >> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c > >> > index 375c109..f4f3038 100644 > >> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c > >> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c > >> > @@ -1130,6 +1130,7 @@ static void mmci_set_ios(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_ios *ios) > >> > struct variant_data *variant = host->variant; > >> > u32 pwr = 0; > >> > unsigned long flags; > >> > + int ret; > >> > > >> > pm_runtime_get_sync(mmc_dev(mmc)); > >> > > >> > @@ -1161,8 +1162,12 @@ static void mmci_set_ios(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_ios *ios) > >> > break; > >> > case MMC_POWER_ON: > >> > if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc) && > >> > - !regulator_is_enabled(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) > >> > >> I realize that we actually have a bug here (and in the MMC_POWER_OFF > >> mode as well). > >> > >> We shall not use regulator_is_enabled API as a trigger to enable/fetch > >> a reference to the regulator, since it will only tell us if the > >> regulator is enabled - hw wise. > >> Instead we need a local variable in the mmci host struct keeping track > >> if we have enabled the regulator. Do you mind fix this up in this > >> patch as well since it is tightly coupled to the regulator handling!? > > > > IMHO I think that should be taken care of in a separate patch. This > > patch only touches the line containing regulator_is_enabled() to > > encompass a multi-line comparison result. > > > > Care to write that patch? I have so much on my TODO already. :| > > Sure, I can fix it. > > I guess this patch will be going through Russell's patch tracker?
Yeah, I'll queue this and another one I have in a bit.
> >> Otherwise it looks good to me. > >> > >> Kind regards > >> Ulf Hansson > >> > >> > - regulator_enable(mmc->supply.vqmmc); > >> > + !regulator_is_enabled(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) { > >> > + ret = regulator_enable(mmc->supply.vqmmc); > >> > + if (ret < 0) > >> > + dev_err(mmc_dev(mmc), > >> > + "failed to enable vqmmc regulator\n"); > >> > + } > >> > > >> > pwr |= MCI_PWR_ON; > >> > break; > >> > > >
-- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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/
| |