Re: [PATCH 0/3] OMAP2+ hwmod fixes

["Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@ti.com>]

Hi Paul,

On 2/23/2011 11:05 AM, Nayak, Rajendra wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
>> From: Paul Walmsley [mailto:paul@pwsan.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:40 AM
>>
>> Hi Rajendra
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>
>>> The original behavior of the iterators, to terminate upon
>>> encountering an error, seems fine to me. The only problem
>>> I faced was that they fail silently and go undetected, unless
>>> their user catches the return value and WARN's, which I found
>>> was not the case with most users, mainly those of
>>> omap_hwmod_for_each_by_class.
>>> I was thinking of keeping the behaviour of these iterators
>>> same for now and add WARN's in these iterators itself upon
>>> an error, so its seen even if the user fails to catch it.
>>
>> What's your opinion on adding the pr_err() or WARN() into the code that
>> the iterator calls for each hwmod?  That code should know why something
>> fails, so it should be able to provide a more detailed error message.
> Of
>> course, it is not as general a solution...
>
> I agree, if the callback functions are written with proper errors
> or WARN's, they are the right place where most of the details'
> exist. So maybe we don't need these in the iterator's after all.

So to conclude, I will drop the #3 and just push #1 and #2.

#1 is fine with addition of the WARN.
#2 does return an error but does not print anything, but since each call 
(_init_main_clk, _init_interface_clks, _init_opt_clks) does report
some pr_warn in case of error, this is fine.


Regards,
Benoit