On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On 02/07/2014 04:49 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> It seems to be standard practice to pass the error value back to the >>> consumer, so you should >>> return ERR_PTR(ret); here instead of the NULL... >> >> >> I have modelled the return values in this function based on the return >> values in the existing hwspin_lock_request interfaces. I would need to >> change those functions as well. >> >> Ohad, >> Do you have any objections to the return code convention change? > > Unless strictly needed, I prefer we don't switch to the ERR_PTR code > convention, as it reduces code readability and increases chances of > user bugs. > > In our case, switching to ERR_PTR and friends seems only to optimize a > few error paths, and I'm not sure it's a big win over simplicity. 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. Regards, Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
