From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797EAC04EB8 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 06:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 324F920863 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 06:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kemnade.info header.i=@kemnade.info header.b="XAX7N2Ct" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 324F920863 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kemnade.info Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726653AbeK3Rqd (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:46:33 -0500 Received: from mail.andi.de1.cc ([85.214.239.24]:59604 "EHLO h2641619.stratoserver.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726456AbeK3Rqd (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:46:33 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kemnade.info; s=20180802; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=smY9fYInNrPRz8Qs0Bp24IqgbOP8R39VB1gf/mqxCqE=; b=XAX7N2CtrKqrFsjN95nZHei21 ViO40eDJUZX33c8QHZNA+hpUBtwLqaCRqGpxvlPpFVq5Nlay4dzrXfeSrllV91KeKZ1qOY5SehlCn lekOrQDRbSGYOxB9GFOFfQg/EyN5Y+j5Kar2w+mNysA78TzR8l0HgXk+OgK6Lorx35mRk=; Received: from hsvpn34.hotsplots.net ([176.74.57.181] helo=localhost) by h2641619.stratoserver.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gScRM-0002Q4-3m; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:38:16 +0100 Received: from localhost ([::1]) by localhost with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gScRK-0001Je-1W; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:38:14 +0100 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:38:04 +0100 From: Andreas Kemnade To: Pavel Machek Cc: johan@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Discussions about the Letux Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/5] gnss: sirf: add a separate supply for a lna Message-ID: <20181130073804.1e57226f@kemnade.info> In-Reply-To: <20181127180356.GA32751@localhost> References: <20181118215801.12280-1-andreas@kemnade.info> <20181118215801.12280-5-andreas@kemnade.info> <20181127180356.GA32751@localhost> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; i686-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/BTjEbUtPs1dNVLJ671peYpD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Sig_/BTjEbUtPs1dNVLJ671peYpD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 19:03:57 +0100 Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! >=20 > > Devices might have a separate lna between antenna output of the gps > > chip and the antenna which might have a separate supply =20 >=20 > Might have. >=20 > > @@ -340,6 +349,12 @@ static int sirf_probe(struct serdev_device *serdev) > > goto err_put_device; > > } > > =20 > > + data->lna =3D devm_regulator_get(dev, "lna"); > > + if (IS_ERR(data->lna)) { > > + ret =3D PTR_ERR(data->lna); > > + goto err_put_device; > > + } > > + =20 >=20 > But it is not optional in the code. Probably should be? well, if it no lna regulator is defined in the dtb, the regulator framework will return a dummy regulator. devm_regulator_get_optional() would not do that and would require more error checking in the code. But if there is some rule which says that devm_regulator_get_optional() should be used here, I can of course change that. Before sending a v2, is that the only issue here? Regards, Andreas --Sig_/BTjEbUtPs1dNVLJ671peYpD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE7sDbhY5mwNpwYgrAfb1qx03ikyQFAlwA2swACgkQfb1qx03i kySlihAAgI5DPKdMqJIbrhgXmk5vhH+z5xvplIxqHczGRwSfYt+7JKNRtJbvGhwX Pxi4oVEb72fOeNRItULe4/pCsC/G5DY2fYdw5G7iiqbdb1/9PdvXctsop67G0Fvs P48doJ5eR3XQi8UFGi/jHJ3sWIqVNz9sHTM4yL8kvtVUpfia4+j6ivFZhXgKm8XX 0YTCACWdd4a8wbdZCvQT5oNktirTLsuVHlyR/DlTEzrPD6SpR1J8aFUdo5PbQ/yw kuwoGZl+vADWcXkW8tyD2ebL1eCu059m652JjNIEtCHz7yihQgRTVpAkIgHL/YXI V6HgS8Tz3QVMPMbJA5ffwYlEubwFWrdrYaC20C4d2TbxPuosFTXpdnDXxmYKWqHl XMHiV29o25UscGixG+QHIugHfV9tJpzle6Ogiv/p+HGRvJx39j+sXeioLdDlPmAR iiORgk2ocZCERYxV+BvzWFX2PRhwQmlhgdEIy9XdC4pQHAKcOV5N3n2+9CSa3ing 5mapahXMe4p3XiNb0LMFcIJtMaI0x01qgB+PfXVXa35tjW3j2pNSOHoC8lQdXSuQ 6U6riISyyKg8QJ8MWugci2xipM1z35pZ52oD9YuvLAcsKgsWGGlEvZ24uCpZW7zG l8CaQx1YyzChw57BDEWzaUh/+wvtSJqBlFoYnnqDUP+48ST2tR0= =gVCe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/BTjEbUtPs1dNVLJ671peYpD--