[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK=WgbYEQPwPH-i_kfF8-h6uOH9q4rcT1+W0smG3e=chDg833Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:05:07 +0200
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 4/5] hwspinlock/core: add common OF helpers
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com> wrote:
>> It seems to me that hwspin_lock_request_specific failures should be
>> used by clients to defer their probing. Why wouldn't such a simple
>> solution work?
> Because the API always returns NULL on failures and there is no way for
> the clients to figure out if the lock id passed is invalid or the bank
> containing the lock is not registered.
It seems to me this may always be the case - lock ids may be wrong and
there's no way to fully validate them.
Let's start with the simpler approach where
hwspin_lock_request_specific failures are used by clients to defer
their probing.
If a real use case will require changes we can always do that later,
though it seems to me the only gain by changing this API is to catch a
small subset of fatal DT mistakes which will anyway be caught very
early in the development.
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