Re: [PATCH 0/2] Annotate gpio-configuration with __must_check

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:05:08AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > > should fail if it cannot be requested. Or not. Things get worse for
> > > architectures I never used before. This is why I think it is really better to
> > > let people do the fixups who have/understand the hardware in question.
> > > Otherwise the fixups could indeed be more harmful than helpful.
> > 
> > Sure, they could be more harmful, but at least try.  Make the patches
> > up, submit them to the maintainers, and if they are wrong, they will be
> > the best to fix it up properly.
> 
> Well, I could generalize all cases and always issue a WARN() if the request
> fails. But this would just move a compile-time warning into a runtime warning.
> Also, I have my doubts that even the arch/mach-maintainers know all the boards
> and their peculiarities. There are thousands of them.

Well, they better know the peculiarities of the hardware they write code
for :)

But no, a WARN() might not be that nice as it usually is never seen by
embedded developers...

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/