On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I recently came across a difference in behaviour of OF phandle parsing and > ACPI reference parsing, both of which can soon be accessed using > fwnode_property_get_reference_args. > > The main change in this proposal touches OF, and specifically the change > is about using -ENODATA to tell that the phandle reference list entry that > was accessed does not exist. -ENOENT was used previously, but the same > error code was also used to tell that a phandle was empty, making it > impossible for the caller to figure out which of the two was the case. > > I'm sending the set as RFC. In my limited testing I have found no ill > effects. > > These patches are on top of linux-next. > > Comments on the approach and the changes themselves would be most welcome. It's not really valid to both have a variable count (and hence need to retrieve it) and use blank phandle entries. The whole point of blank entries is to have a fixed length and know what each index corresponds too. Do you have an example where we hit this? Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
