All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Cc: LM Sensors <lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, Wei Ni <wni@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] lm90 driver no longer working on PCs in 3.13
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:50:40 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52E58330.90602@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140126214936.7736f530@endymion.delvare>

On 01/26/2014 12:49 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:44:38 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 01/26/2014 12:13 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> The regulator code changed with 3.13; the dummy regulator no longer exists,
>> and the functionality it provided is supposed to be handled automatically.
>> But that only really works on devicetree based systems and otherwise returns
>> -EPROBE_DEFER as mentioned above.
>>
>> Maybe there is some configuration option, or maybe something needs to be
>> configured from user space. I found neither.
>
> Neither would be acceptable to my eyes anyway. Things worked out of the
> box before, they should keep working out of the box.
>
>> In the first case, we should create
>> a dependency for the LM90 driver; in the latter case, we would have to make sure
>> that it is well documented (I'd grumble on that, though - it would result in
>> never ending trouble for us, having to repeatedly explain how this is now
>> supposed to work).
>>
>> Another possible fix would be to have the regulator core return -ENODEV
>> instead of -EPROBE_DEFER on non-dt systems. No idea if this would be acceptable
>> or even feasible.
>
> Well, either the regulator subsystem gets fixed (or provides a suitable
> API for drivers like lm90 and we update the lm90 driver to use it), or
> I'll just revert the problematic commit for now. This is a severe
> regression, we just can't leave things that way.
>

Maybe your configuration has CONFIG_REGULATORS disabled. Ubuntu has it enabled.
I don't know about others.

I agree, we may have to revert the patch. I don't think the regulator API works well
enough in non-dt systems to be able to use it in such systems. Mark's expectation
that regulator support must be disabled if regulators are not fully declared in non-dt
systems doesn't seem very useful nor really feasible.

Guenter


_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Cc: LM Sensors <lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, Wei Ni <wni@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: lm90 driver no longer working on PCs in 3.13
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:50:40 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52E58330.90602@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140126214936.7736f530@endymion.delvare>

On 01/26/2014 12:49 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:44:38 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 01/26/2014 12:13 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> The regulator code changed with 3.13; the dummy regulator no longer exists,
>> and the functionality it provided is supposed to be handled automatically.
>> But that only really works on devicetree based systems and otherwise returns
>> -EPROBE_DEFER as mentioned above.
>>
>> Maybe there is some configuration option, or maybe something needs to be
>> configured from user space. I found neither.
>
> Neither would be acceptable to my eyes anyway. Things worked out of the
> box before, they should keep working out of the box.
>
>> In the first case, we should create
>> a dependency for the LM90 driver; in the latter case, we would have to make sure
>> that it is well documented (I'd grumble on that, though - it would result in
>> never ending trouble for us, having to repeatedly explain how this is now
>> supposed to work).
>>
>> Another possible fix would be to have the regulator core return -ENODEV
>> instead of -EPROBE_DEFER on non-dt systems. No idea if this would be acceptable
>> or even feasible.
>
> Well, either the regulator subsystem gets fixed (or provides a suitable
> API for drivers like lm90 and we update the lm90 driver to use it), or
> I'll just revert the problematic commit for now. This is a severe
> regression, we just can't leave things that way.
>

Maybe your configuration has CONFIG_REGULATORS disabled. Ubuntu has it enabled.
I don't know about others.

I agree, we may have to revert the patch. I don't think the regulator API works well
enough in non-dt systems to be able to use it in such systems. Mark's expectation
that regulator support must be disabled if regulators are not fully declared in non-dt
systems doesn't seem very useful nor really feasible.

Guenter


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-01-26 21:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-01-26 19:28 [lm-sensors] lm90 driver no longer working on PCs in 3.13 Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 19:28 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 20:13 ` [lm-sensors] " Jean Delvare
2014-01-26 20:13   ` Jean Delvare
2014-01-26 20:42   ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-26 20:42     ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 20:44   ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 20:44     ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 20:49     ` [lm-sensors] " Jean Delvare
2014-01-26 20:49       ` Jean Delvare
2014-01-26 21:22       ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-26 21:22         ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 21:40         ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 21:40           ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 21:53           ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-26 21:53             ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 22:02             ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 22:02               ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 23:37               ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-26 23:37                 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 21:44         ` [lm-sensors] " Jean Delvare
2014-01-26 21:44           ` Jean Delvare
2014-01-26 23:15           ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-26 23:15             ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 10:10             ` [lm-sensors] " Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-01-27 10:10               ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-01-27 13:18               ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-27 13:18                 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 21:50       ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2014-01-26 21:50         ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 22:04         ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 22:04           ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 23:51           ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 23:51             ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27  4:16             ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-27  4:16               ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-27 10:34               ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 10:34                 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 17:19             ` Stephen Warren
2014-01-27 17:19               ` Stephen Warren
2014-01-27 18:50               ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-27 18:50                 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-27 22:04                 ` Jean Delvare
2014-01-27 22:04                   ` Jean Delvare
2014-01-27 23:41                   ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-27 23:41                     ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-27 23:58                     ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 23:58                       ` Mark Brown
2014-01-28  2:33                       ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-28  2:33                         ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-28 10:24                         ` Mark Brown
2014-01-28 10:24                           ` Mark Brown
2014-01-28 12:34                   ` Mark Brown
2014-01-28 12:34                     ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 22:36                 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 22:36                   ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 20:52     ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 20:52       ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 21:47       ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 21:47         ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 22:01         ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-26 22:01           ` Mark Brown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=52E58330.90602@roeck-us.net \
    --to=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=khali@linux-fr.org \
    --cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org \
    --cc=wni@nvidia.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.