On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Mark
Brown<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:13:23PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>
>> OK I got what you meant now. If we use the use_gpio_enable flag then there would
>> not be any problem even if GPIO is set to 0 ignorantly. Because in
>> that case use_gpio_enable will
>> also be set to zero.
>> So, I feel we should keep use_gpio_enable as it is in the original patch.
>
> There's no in-tree users to care about and the use_gpio_enable thing is
> just ugly - it's not worth carrying it around for ever just for this.
>
OK. I will remove use_gpio_enable then.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Roger Quadros<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Mark
> Brown<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:13:23PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>
>>> OK I got what you meant now. If we use the use_gpio_enable flag then there would
>>> not be any problem even if GPIO is set to 0 ignorantly. Because in
>>> that case use_gpio_enable will
>>> also be set to zero.
>>> So, I feel we should keep use_gpio_enable as it is in the original patch.
>>
>> There's no in-tree users to care about and the use_gpio_enable thing is
>> just ugly - it's not worth carrying it around for ever just for this.
>>
>
> OK. I will remove use_gpio_enable then.
>
Also, if regulator register fails then we should free the GPIO
before goto err_name