[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <94d4cfc5-0ea7-e642-c7e3-8d549bdef8ce@lechnology.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 20:49:52 -0500
From: David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
To: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 03/27] clk: davinci: psc: allow for dev == NULL
On 05/01/2018 09:02 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Friday 27 April 2018 05:47 AM, David Lechner wrote:
>> +static inline void *_devm_kzalloc(struct device *dev, size_t size, gfp_t flags)
>> +{
>> + if (dev)
>> + return devm_kzalloc(dev, size, flags);
>> +
>> + return kzalloc(size, flags);
>> +}
>
> I have the same question on the utility of this. A memory allocation
> error so early on is not going to result in a bootable system anyway.
> So, I wonder if its better to just BUG() in such cases. That will
> actually help faster debug than returning an error back. I know the push
> back on using BUG(), but clock drivers are special, and I think thats
> why its seems to be used quite a bit already.
>
Same reply here as well. On DA850/DA830, you might not get a console,
but you will "boot" even if one of the PSC devices fails though.
WARN() is probably just as good as BUG() in this case too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists