On 2020-06-24 11:14, Lee Jones wrote: > 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? > No, please do not. I don't want to give the patch that strong of an endorsement.
