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

[Suman Anna]

Hi Ohad,

On 03/02/2014 02:19 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 02/07/2014 04:49 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > > It seems to be standard practice to pass the error value back to the
> > > > consumer, so you should
> > > > return ERR_PTR(ret); here instead of the NULL...
> > >
> > >
> > > I have modelled the return values in this function based on the return
> > > values in the existing hwspin_lock_request interfaces. I would need to
> > > change those functions as well.
> > >
> > > Ohad,
> > > Do you have any objections to the return code convention change?
> >
> > Unless strictly needed, I prefer we don't switch to the ERR_PTR code
> > convention, as it reduces code readability and increases chances of
> > user bugs.
> >
> > In our case, switching to ERR_PTR and friends seems only to optimize a
> > few error paths, and I'm not sure it's a big win over simplicity.
>
> 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.

Can you confirm the changes you want me to make, so that I can refresh 
and post a v5 for 3.15?

regards
Suman

--
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/