Re: [PATCH] Input: ads7846: add regulator support

[Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>]

On 4 Feb 2010, at 18:08, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 04:21:55PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 04:52:26PM +0200, Grazvydas Ignotas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Mark Brown
>>
>>>> The updates to fix up the boards that need this are fairly
>>>> straightforward and given that it's fairly easy to identify systems
>>>> which are using the driver in mainline so I'd really prefer not  
>>>> to go
>>>> down the route of trying to carry on in the face of error, it  
>>>> papers
>>>> over stuff now but is not robust in the face of future changes.
>>
>>> What about warning and continuing only on ENODEV then? I really  
>>> don't
>>> want to be responsible for potentially breaking touchscreen on ~30
>>> boards, where I have no idea about how things are wired up and how  
>>> the
>>> regulators should be set up.
>>
>> I'm really not terribly enthusiastic about that approach - like I  
>> say,
>> it just moves the problem about a bit and postpones the breakage in a
>> potentially more obscure fashion.
>>
>
> Maybe we should rely on platform data to tell us whether we need to  
> plug
> into regulator framework and in this case fail hard on any error?

That doesn't really help - it requres per driver code for the platform  
data and for conditionalising all the regulator API calls, results in  
inconsistent behaviour between drivers (does this driver have a no  
regulator switch?) and is looking a bit like the situation where  
you're passing around the regulator name to match device and supply.  
It seems like more work overall for users.