Hi Dmitry,

On 20-01-10 08:18, Marco Felsch wrote:

On 20-01-10 08:16, Marco Felsch wrote:

quoted

Hi Dmitry,

On 20-01-09 17:09, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

Hi Marco,

On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 12:10:50PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:

quoted

+static int __maybe_unused edt_ft5x06_ts_resume(struct device *dev)
+{
+	struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
+	struct edt_ft5x06_ts_data *tsdata = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
+	int ret;
+
+	if (device_may_wakeup(dev))
+		return 0;
+
+	ret = regulator_enable(tsdata->vcc);
+	if (ret)
+		dev_warn(dev, "Failed to enable vcc\n");

I wonder if we should not return error here instead of continuing. If
device is not powered up properly we'll have hard time communicating
with it.

That's a reasonable point.

quoted

The same is for suspend: maybe we should abort if we can't switch off
regulator or write to the device.

I have no strong opinion about that case but IMHO it's okay to go further
if we can't switch it off. Instead we should print a warning.

I just noticed that we do that already.. So the suspend case should be
okay.

Is it okay to check the return val for the resume case only? I want to
prepare a v4 of this patch to get this done.

Regards,
  Marco

quoted

Regards,
  Marco

quoted

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |