From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/panel: lvds: Handle the optional regulator case properly
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 23:30:59 +0200
Message-ID: <4247973.Y2IEusv7l3@avalon>
Organization: Ideas on Board Oy
In-Reply-To: <87zi5kii00.fsf@intel.com>
References: <20180110155941.16109-1-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <1944741.zEkzsdPTSS@avalon> <87zi5kii00.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

Hi Jani,

On Thursday, 11 January 2018 16:31:59 EET Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > My preference, however, would be for devm_regulator_get_optional() to
> > return NULL when no regulator is present. The current implementation
> > returns -ENODEV in multiple cases, making it impossible to properly
> > discriminate between having no regulator and not being able to get the
> > regulator due to an error.
> 
> Just a word of warning, IS_ERR(NULL) is false, and your proposed change
> would apparently require quite a churn all over the kernel.

That's correct, but I still think that would make the API clearer. I don't 
want to block this patch until we make such a change, but it's a good 
opportunity to discuss it. I'd like to know what Mark's opinion is.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart