On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 2020-06-24 02:46, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote: > > > >> On 2020-06-23 14:59, Lee Jones wrote: > > < big snip > > > Thanks for the replies in the above portion. NP. > >>>> But yes or no to my solution #2 (with some slight changes to > >>>> make it better (more gracious handling of the detected error) as > >>>> discussed elsewhere in the email thread)? > >>> > >>> Please see "[0]" above! > >>> > >>> AFAICT your solution #2 involves bombing out *all* devices if there is > >>> a duplicate compatible with no 'reg' property value. This is a) > >>> over-kill and b) not an error, as I mentioned: > >> > >> As I mentioned above, I set you up to have this misunderstanding by > >> a mistake in one of my earlier emails. So now that I have pointed > >> out what I meant here by "more gracious handling of the detected > >> error", what do you think of my amended solution #2? > > > > Explained above, but the LT;DR is that it's not correct. > > I don't agree with you, I think my solution is better. Even if I > prefer my solution, I find your solution to be good enough. I still don't see how it could work, but please feel free to submit a subsequent patch and we can discuss it on its own merits. > So I am dropping my specific objection to returning -EAGAIN from > mfd_match_of_node_to_dev() when the node has previously been > allocated to a device. Great. Thanks for taking an interest. Does this mean I can apply your Reviewed-by? -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
