Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Message-ID: <10e6377e-ab3f-c318-9860-56ff3b8aed92@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:45:07 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] thermal: exynos: simplify regulator
 (de)initialization
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        m.majewski2@samsung.com,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amitk@kernel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
References: <bf9a07ff-5628-05ab-2362-a917d3d38313@linaro.org>
 <20230911133435.14061-1-m.majewski2@samsung.com>
 <20230911133435.14061-5-m.majewski2@samsung.com>
 <CGME20230911133616eucas1p10c5eeb0f0240dde975ccc5935cb5c311@eucms1p2>
 <20230926110239eucms1p2b539245c5b10591def4cd15f14896ad6@eucms1p2>
 <67a7d507-7025-ee3e-f388-0a96e11eae41@linaro.org>
 <a6f943be-a92f-f9ec-4103-7edc70a2c9a8@samsung.com>
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <a6f943be-a92f-f9ec-4103-7edc70a2c9a8@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 29/09/2023 13:03, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> On 29.09.2023 12:46, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 26/09/2023 13:02, Mateusz Majewski wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> This is not equivalent. If regulator is provided and enable fails, the
>>>> old code is nicely returning error. Now, it will print misleading
>>>> message - failed to get regulator - and continue.
>>>>
>>>> While this simplifies the code, it ignores important running
>>>> condition -
>>>> having regulator enabled.
>>>
>>> Would doing this be correct?
>>>
>>> ret = devm_regulator_get_enable_optional(&pdev->dev, "vtmu");
>>> switch (ret) {
>>> case 0:
>>> case -ENODEV:
>>
>> Not sure to understand why -NODEV is not an error
> 
> 
> Because this what devm_regulator_get_enable_optional() returns if no
> regulator is defined. I also got confused by this a few times.

The code before this change calls devm_regulator_get_optional() which 
returns -ENODEV too, right ? But there is no special case for this error.

So this change uses devm_regulator_get_enable_optional() and handle the 
ENODEV as a non-error, so there is a change in the behavior.


>>>      break;
>>> case -EPROBE_DEFER:
>>>      return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>> default:
>>>      dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get enabled regulator: %d\n",
>>>          ret);
>>>      return ret;
>>> }
>>
>> ret = devm_regulator_get_enable_optional(&pdev->dev, "vtmu");
>> if (ret < 0) {
>>      if (ret != EPROBE_DEFER)
>>          dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get enabled regulator: %d\n",
>> ret);
>>      return ret;
>> }
>>
>> ??
>>
> Best regards

-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog