[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK=WgbYS+eJSTBXF=OeWjuL6iSbH+Y1RYewARKh9yAXHKKZ_cA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:12:26 +0200
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>
Cc: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 4/7] hwspinlock/core: add common OF helpers
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se> wrote:
> 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.
I'm not convinced.
The only advantage this brings is to avoid retrying in case a fatal
error has occurred. Such fatal errors are extremely rare, and when
they show up - extremely painful, and I suspect that optimizing them
wouldn't be a big win.
OTOH, keeping the code easier to read and less error prone is a big
win. I prefer we keep it simple for now.
Thanks,
Ohad.
--
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