On 10/23/12 09:51, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Igor Grinberg <grinberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> + ret = wl12xx_set_platform_data(wlan_data); >>> + /* bail out silently in case wl12xx isn't configured */ >>> + if (ret == -ENOSYS) >>> + return ret; >> >> Since we have the function ifdef'ed, I don't think we need >> the ENOSYS check, do we? > > If we want to be strict, we better not remove it. > > It's an interface that hides the internal implementation, and it's > just better not to assume anything beyond the return values and their > meanings. This way if WLAN folks change something in the future, we > don't need to update all the boards code again. Well, with this argument, we can add this (and many other checks) to many more places in the code... I just wanted to point out that most probably ret == -ENOSYS will never happen since the #ifdef is added, but no problem from my side, it does not hurt to have 4 more lines just in case, right? Thanks for the patch and the explanation! You have my ack already... -- Regards, Igor. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
