From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [PATCH] dw_mmc: fixed regulator control Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:23:24 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4DBA90BD.8070804@samsung.com> <4DBE62FE.6020402@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:48069 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752740Ab1EKBVB (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 May 2011 21:21:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4DBE62FE.6020402@samsung.com> (Jaehoon Chung's message of "Mon, 02 May 2011 16:53:34 +0900") Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Jaehoon Chung Cc: "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , will.newton@imgtec.com, Kyungmin Park , Lars-Peter Clausen Hi Jaehoon, On Mon, May 02 2011, Jaehoon Chung wrote: > Hi Chris.. > > Thanks for comments... > I think that could confuse that message when didn't set CONFIG_REGULATOR. The message *does not appear* when CONFIG_REGULATOR is unset, because NULL -- which the regulator subsystem returns via the regulator_get() stub -- is not an IS_ERR(). Do you agree? > And i wonder how do you think about regulator control in suspend (dw_mmc.c)? Yes, that patch looks correct, although I can't test it myself. Please send it separately. - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child