Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753845AbcD0Kfd (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2016 06:35:33 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:47172 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752236AbcD0Kfb (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2016 06:35:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:35:21 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Felipe Balbi Cc: Jisheng Zhang , mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, yendapally.reddy@broadcom.com Message-ID: <20160427103521.GJ3217@sirena.org.uk> References: <1461675460-2295-1-git-send-email-jszhang@marvell.com> <1461675460-2295-8-git-send-email-jszhang@marvell.com> <87bn4vpq7j.fsf@intel.com> <20160427095738.GG3217@sirena.org.uk> <87oa8vmjqg.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IsnUL1l5eQkg/TsG" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87oa8vmjqg.fsf@intel.com> X-Cookie: Tomorrow, you can be anywhere. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:348:6:8808:fab::3 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 7/7] usb: xhci: plat: add vbus regulator control X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1401 Lines: 37 --IsnUL1l5eQkg/TsG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:25:27PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Mark Brown writes: > > this to be just a normal regulator_get(). > jokes aside, this regulator is optional because not all platforms > require a SW controlled regulator, no ? Will normal regulator_get() give > us a dummy regulator in case it's not listed in DT/ACPI ? Yes we do that, but even regulators that are not software controlled should really be described anyway since it's a much simpler rule for people to understand, it ensures that we can just scale up on systems where there does happen to be software control and it makes all the resulting code much simpler and hence less error prone if we're not randomly ignoring some errors. --IsnUL1l5eQkg/TsG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXIJXnAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQKwEH/3Y/Qb6az/zCn397fQqrOrC8 jc3oY82HiK+4Yf/F54Q8lxw2G2aVpTU1bssMLhXkMZJ+GN6r0oXqO1PQc9oMSxgf n1K6De2YSW1fwnL0XI4USS3iJp/Pu3c3E/wd2yts8eWzf8EmiuIrYA6oKJhlU3vp e18IsDGl8Xi+QMKER7i+7qoQRc/vLpRzhZEq9QzqHJwwGWvmsgemljUdbMPIA6uu X5imLGoypXaaZYNqsDhsCRHemnoHiotYnWvPLPwky5JghZzRVDVX3rfiokSg/qAN T6gui8Lmvqe8Y+Le4KroKiTs0z7qwpBfU4PQl0VNeUyDZejSg8V0cSfEWyehGuo= =qVLw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IsnUL1l5eQkg/TsG--