On 11/7/18 4:08 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx writes: > >> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx> >> >> of_attach_node() and of_detach_node() always return zero, so >> their return value is meaningless. > > But should they always return zero? > > At least __of_attach_node_sysfs() can fail in several ways. Sigh. And of_reconfig_notify() can fail. And at one point in the history the return value of of_reconfig_notify() was returned by of_attach_node() if of_reconfig_notify() failed. > And there's also this in __of_detach_node() which should probably be > returning an error: > > if (WARN_ON(of_node_check_flag(np, OF_DETACHED))) > return; > > > Seems to me we should instead be fixing these to propagate errors, > rather than hiding them? The history of how of_attach_node() stopped propagating errors is a bit more complex than I want to dig into at the moment. So I'll drop this patch from the series and add investigating this onto my todo list. I suspect that the result of investigating will be that error return values should not be ignored in of_attach_node() and of_detach_node(), but should instead be propagated to the callers, as you suggest. -Frank > > cheers >
