Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Thanks. cheers
