On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:12:26PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > I'm not convinced. > > The only advantage this brings is to avoid retrying in case a fatal > error has occurred. Such fatal errors are extremely rare, and when > they show up - extremely painful, and I suspect that optimizing them > wouldn't be a big win. So, are you suggesting that because fatal errors should be "extremely rare", a consuming driver should just assume that if NULL is returned from a hwspin_lock_request*() function that it was the "device not yet probed" case that was hit? Note that having the consumer/hwspinlock device relationship modeled in devicetree introduces more potential failure cases... -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- 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
