Re: [PATCH] regulator: stub out devm_regulator_get_exclusive

Rob Clark
2014-10-24T20:36:25Z

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> 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.

oh, looks like a case of overambitious mailing list filter rules.. I
did not see the earlier threads on the topic.

iirc, I was using _get_exclusive() in a few places where I wanted to
be sure not to get dummy-regulator in cases where I should
-EPROBE_DEFER instead (since probe order with DT is slightly
hilarious, and since I depend on a few other drivers I end up
deferring at least a couple times at boot)... I don't quite remember
the details. But afaict regulator_get() still allows dummy-regulator,
which is what I specifically don't want.

If you have a recommendation for a better way, I am all ears.

BR,
-R

> 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.