Re: [PATCH] regulator: stub out devm_regulator_get_exclusive

[Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1605 bytes --]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:11:38PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:15:11PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > If we don't stup that call out, we will have
> > build failures for any drivers using that function
> > when .config happens to have CONFIG_REGULATOR=n.
> > 
> > One such case below, found with randconfig
> > 
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/mdp/mdp4/mdp4_kms.c: In function ‘mdp4_kms_init’:
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/mdp/mdp4/mdp4_kms.c:384:2: error: implicit declaration \
> 
> As previously and repeatedly reported the regulator usage in this driver
> appears extremely problematic, among these problems is that it almost
> certainly has no sensible reason to be using regulator_get_exclusive()
> or any variant of it.  Sadly every time it's been raised with the video
> people they've completely ignored the mail so here we are.
> 
> Right now not having the stub seems to only be affecting buggy users
> (which given the use cases for _exclusive() isn't *that* surprising) so
> I'm more inclined to leave this there in the hope that the users get
> fixed or we can at least get some sort of dialogue with the relevant
> maintainers.

quite frankly, flawed or not, I still think it's wrong of regulator
framework to cause a build break during randconfig. Pretty much every
other call is stubbed out, why wouldn't this be ? Moreover, if nobody
cared to this day, why would this randconfig build break change their
minds ?

Not that I really care, it's just yet another build break I need to
ignore when build-testing. Whatever.

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]