From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:07:39 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: sdhci: Defer probe if regulator_get fails In-Reply-To: <5086C5F5.4070801@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1350976740-19284-1-git-send-email-pkunapuli@nvidia.com> <1350976740-19284-3-git-send-email-pkunapuli@nvidia.com> <1350979047.20572.6.camel@tellur> <5086C5F5.4070801@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <20121023170723.GD4477@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29:41AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 10/23/2012 01:57 AM, Lucas Stach wrote: > > Does this work with boards where we don't have any MMC supplies? Or are > > we just deferring the probe indefinitely there? > > For boards that power MMC unconditionally, are we supposed to add dummy > > regulators to make them work with this patchset? > I believe that dummy (fixed) regulators are supposed to be provided in > all cases where the platform doesn't actually have one. The fact that > everything worked OK without them before this patch was most likely a > mistake/accident. That's the general idea; clearly there *are* supplies here, they're just not software controlled supplies. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: