On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 08:40:07AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:27:04AM -0800, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

Oh, in that case it seems really odd that it's returning a pointer to
the device rather than just returning success or failure.

It has to as it gives you a pointer which you can use to unregister the
device later. Also it's in line with the platform helpers like
platform_device_register_resndata, platform_device_register_simple and
others.

Hrm, right.  Again I'd expect all users to be in board code so not ever
unregistering anything.

quoted

In all these cases there is actually a physical supply of some kind; if
there isn't one then you'd expect the driver would have explicit code to
handle that in some way.

Yes, there is one. But I think it will only be described in the device
tree if it's software controllable.

I don't see why that needs to be the case.

quoted

without making an effort to go round all the uers and at least notify
the existing users of the device that they need updates.  There's a
limited amount we can do in the core

Are you then willing to merge my patch to make it easier to not break
boards? I would remove the voltage parameter and fix a remaining
Kconfig/ifdef issue then.

Well, if you send a patch that looks sensible and is signed off and
whatnot yes.  I've no problem with a helper function.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120217/e681d441/attachment.sig>