devicetree.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Cc: andy.shevchenko@gmail.com, michael@walle.cc, robh+dt@kernel.org,
	broonie@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux@roeck-us.net,
	andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mfd: core: Make a best effort attempt to match devices with the correct of_nodes
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:14:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200624161435.GI954398@dell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d7774c42-fd41-9fab-2ea0-cd6bc7d35383@gmail.com>

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:

> On 2020-06-24 02:46, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2020-06-23 14:59, Lee Jones wrote:
> 
> < big snip >
> 
> Thanks for the replies in the above portion.

NP.

> >>>> But yes or no to my solution #2 (with some slight changes to
> >>>> make it better (more gracious handling of the detected error) as
> >>>> discussed elsewhere in the email thread)?
> >>>
> >>> Please see "[0]" above!
> >>>
> >>> AFAICT your solution #2 involves bombing out *all* devices if there is
> >>> a duplicate compatible with no 'reg' property value.  This is a)
> >>> over-kill and b) not an error, as I mentioned:
> >>
> >> As I mentioned above, I set you up to have this misunderstanding by
> >> a mistake in one of my earlier emails.  So now that I have pointed
> >> out what I meant here by "more gracious handling of the detected
> >> error", what do you think of my amended solution #2?
> > 
> > Explained above, but the LT;DR is that it's not correct.
> 
> I don't agree with you, I think my solution is better.  Even if I
> prefer my solution, I find your solution to be good enough.

I still don't see how it could work, but please feel free to submit a
subsequent patch and we can discuss it on its own merits.

> So I am dropping my specific objection to returning -EAGAIN from
> mfd_match_of_node_to_dev() when the node has previously been
> allocated to a device.

Great.  Thanks for taking an interest.

Does this mean I can apply your Reviewed-by?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-24 16:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-11 19:10 [PATCH v2 1/3] mfd: core: Make a best effort attempt to match devices with the correct of_nodes Lee Jones
2020-06-11 19:10 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mfd: core: Fix formatting of MFD helpers Lee Jones
2020-06-12 12:27   ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-11 19:10 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mfd: core: Add OF_MFD_CELL_REG() helper Lee Jones
2020-06-12 12:28   ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-12 12:26 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] mfd: core: Make a best effort attempt to match devices with the correct of_nodes Frank Rowand
2020-06-15  1:19 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-15  9:26   ` Lee Jones
2020-06-18 17:34     ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22  8:50       ` Lee Jones
2020-06-22 14:32         ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22 14:35           ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22 15:10           ` Lee Jones
2020-06-22 18:01             ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22 18:04               ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22 19:11               ` Lee Jones
2020-06-22 22:23                 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-23  1:17                   ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-23  1:37                     ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-23  6:47                   ` Lee Jones
2020-06-23 17:55                     ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-23 19:59                       ` Lee Jones
2020-06-23 22:33                         ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-24  7:46                           ` Lee Jones
2020-06-24 15:51                             ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-24 16:14                               ` Lee Jones [this message]
2020-06-24 16:25                                 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22  8:09 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-22 16:09   ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22 16:53     ` Lee Jones
2020-06-23 22:21 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-24  6:45   ` Lee Jones
2020-06-23 23:03 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-24  6:41   ` Lee Jones
2020-06-24  7:47     ` Michael Walle
2020-06-24  8:23       ` Lee Jones
2020-06-24  9:19         ` Michael Walle
2020-06-24 11:24           ` Lee Jones
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-06-11 19:12 Lee Jones

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200624161435.GI954398@dell \
    --to=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=michael@walle.cc \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).