Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-154531-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>, 
 Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
 Aleksander Mazur <deweloper@wp.pl>, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
In-Reply-To: <ZiYF6d1V1vSPcsJS@drtxq0yyyyyyyyyyyyyby-3.rev.dnainternet.fi>
References: <ZiYF6d1V1vSPcsJS@drtxq0yyyyyyyyyyyyyby-3.rev.dnainternet.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: change stubbed devm_regulator_get_enable to
 return Ok
Message-Id: <171385046257.1774956.13833475166479174352.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:34:22 +0900
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:38:33 +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> The devm_regulator_get_enable() should be a 'call and forget' API,
> meaning, when it is used to enable the regulators, the API does not
> provide a handle to do any further control of the regulators. It gives
> no real benefit to return an error from the stub if CONFIG_REGULATOR is
> not set.
> 
> On the contrary, returning and error is causing problems to drivers when
> hardware is such it works out just fine with no regulator control.
> Returning an error forces drivers to specifically handle the case where
> CONFIG_REGULATOR is not set, making the mere existence of the stub
> questionalble. Furthermore, the stub of the regulator_enable() seems to
> be returning Ok.
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] regulator: change stubbed devm_regulator_get_enable to return Ok
      commit: 96e20adc43c4f81e9163a5188cee75a6dd393e09

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark