Re: [PATCHv4 4/7] hwspinlock/core: add common OF helpers

[Josh Cartwright]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:12:26PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > When introducing the ability to reference a hwspin lock via a phandle
> > in device tree it makes a big difference to be able to differ between
> > the case of "initialization failed" or "device not yet probed"; so
> > that the client knows if it should fail or retry later.
> 
> I'm not convinced.
> 
> The only advantage this brings is to avoid retrying in case a fatal
> error has occurred. Such fatal errors are extremely rare, and when
> they show up - extremely painful, and I suspect that optimizing them
> wouldn't be a big win.

So, are you suggesting that because fatal errors should be "extremely
rare", a consuming driver should just assume that if NULL is returned
from a hwspin_lock_request*() function that it was the "device not yet
probed" case that was hit?

Note that having the consumer/hwspinlock device relationship modeled in
devicetree introduces more potential failure cases...

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/