From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il>
Subject: Re: Errors at boot time from OMAP4430SDP (and a whinge about serial
 stuff)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:46:08 +0200
Message-ID: <50866760.3010509@compulab.co.il>
References: <20121012155434.GO28061@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20121012162452.GD30339@atomide.com> <CAK=Wgba087mdaYhvKNUAy6H8rAb+owTAz1yqexEtDg+f06kJdg@mail.gmail.com> <20121016181038.GC15569@atomide.com> <20121016182642.GF15569@atomide.com> <CAK=WgbaQ-0V2htnmyCAzBco-sZVWN3WR2mhABGZNaYU6uM1wgg@mail.gmail.com> <507EA7DB.3070207@compulab.co.il> <CAK=Wgba_-k0kCHah6t6L4=qt838j30ZRVRbgAdJ1yzHDyA8frw@mail.gmail.com> <20121019170759.GK4730@atomide.com> <CAK=WgbbPmuOgssRRSinsV3rXg7TUa9fpOP-Zg+VatZgqgVYixw@mail.gmail.com> <5086494D.4080205@compulab.co.il> <CAK=WgbZfJ3bg+Xt+HJtaiPHV=7=TK-=93SgB7cNp8XwwZRyB0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from softlayer.compulab.co.il ([50.23.254.55]:41613 "EHLO
	compulab.co.il" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756963Ab2JWJqO (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 23 Oct 2012 05:46:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAK=WgbZfJ3bg+Xt+HJtaiPHV=7=TK-=93SgB7cNp8XwwZRyB0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>, "Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@ti.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>, Afzal Mohammed <afzal@ti.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?P=E9ter_Ujfalusi?= <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>



On 10/23/12 09:51, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> wrote:
>>> +     ret = wl12xx_set_platform_data(wlan_data);
>>> +     /* bail out silently in case wl12xx isn't configured */
>>> +     if (ret == -ENOSYS)
>>> +             return ret;
>>
>> Since we have the function ifdef'ed, I don't think we need
>> the ENOSYS check, do we?
> 
> If we want to be strict, we better not remove it.
> 
> It's an interface that hides the internal implementation, and it's
> just better not to assume anything beyond the return values and their
> meanings. This way if WLAN folks change something in the future, we
> don't need to update all the boards code again.

Well, with this argument, we can add this (and many other checks) to
many more places in the code...
I just wanted to point out that most probably ret == -ENOSYS will
never happen since the #ifdef is added, but no problem from my side,
it does not hurt to have 4 more lines just in case, right?

Thanks for the patch and the explanation!

You have my ack already...

-- 
Regards,
Igor.