Hi Suman, On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote: >>>> 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. >> > > Can you confirm the changes you want me to make, so that I can refresh and > post a v5 for 3.15? Sorry, I missed your replies for some reason. I prefer we stick with the current error handling code because I find the alternative inferior (as long as it's not strictly needed). Thanks, Ohad. -- 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
