Messages in this thread | | | From | Rob Herring <> | Date | Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:41:32 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drm/panfrost: Fix regulator_get_optional() misuse |
| |
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:23 PM Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> wrote: > > On 04/09/2019 13:30, Mark Brown wrote: > > The panfrost driver requests a supply using regulator_get_optional() > > but both the name of the supply and the usage pattern suggest that it is > > being used for the main power for the device and is not at all optional > > for the device for function, there is no meaningful handling for absent > > supplies. Such regulators should use the vanilla regulator_get() > > interface, it will ensure that even if a supply is not described in the > > system integration one will be provided in software. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > > Tested-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > > Looks like my approach to this was wrong - so we should also revert the > changes I made previously. > > ----8<---- > From fe20f8abcde8444bb41a8f72fb35de943a27ec5c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:20:53 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] drm/panfrost: Revert changes to cope with NULL regulator > > Handling a NULL return from devm_regulator_get_optional() doesn't seem > like the correct way of handling this. Instead revert the changes in > favour of switching to using devm_regulator_get() which will return a > dummy regulator instead. > > Reverts commit 52282163dfa6 ("drm/panfrost: Add missing check for pfdev->regulator") > Reverts commit e21dd290881b ("drm/panfrost: Enable devfreq to work without regulator")
Does a straight revert of these 2 patches not work? If it does work, can you do that and send to the list. I don't want my hand slapped again reverting things.
Rob
| |