[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110104234440.GC30328@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:44:40 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Annotate gpio-configuration with __must_check
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:05:08AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > > should fail if it cannot be requested. Or not. Things get worse for
> > > architectures I never used before. This is why I think it is really better to
> > > let people do the fixups who have/understand the hardware in question.
> > > Otherwise the fixups could indeed be more harmful than helpful.
> >
> > Sure, they could be more harmful, but at least try. Make the patches
> > up, submit them to the maintainers, and if they are wrong, they will be
> > the best to fix it up properly.
>
> Well, I could generalize all cases and always issue a WARN() if the request
> fails. But this would just move a compile-time warning into a runtime warning.
> Also, I have my doubts that even the arch/mach-maintainers know all the boards
> and their peculiarities. There are thousands of them.
Well, they better know the peculiarities of the hardware they write code
for :)
But no, a WARN() might not be that nice as it usually is never seen by
embedded developers...
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists