From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s-anna@ti.com (Suman Anna) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:38:23 -0600 Subject: [PATCHv4 4/7] hwspinlock/core: add common OF helpers In-Reply-To: References: <1389658764-39199-1-git-send-email-s-anna@ti.com> <1389658764-39199-5-git-send-email-s-anna@ti.com> <52F92524.3080402@ti.com> Message-ID: <53160F8F.9060405@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Ohad, On 03/02/2014 02:19 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Suman Anna 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