On 29 October 2014 22:10, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Hi Ulf, Rafael, >> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Typically an ->attach_dev() callback would fetch some PM resourses. >>> >>> Those operations, like for example clk_get() may fail with different >>> errors, including -EPROBE_DEFER. Instead of ignoring these errors and >>> potentially only print an error message, let's propagate them to give >>> callers the option to handle them. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Given that several patch series using ->attach_dev() are already floating >> around and will be in -next soon, what is the plan of getting this in? > > Shall we take this as a Reviewed-by or Acked-by for the series? :) > >> Doing it ASAP (in v3.18-rc3)? > > IMO, this isn't at all appropriate for -rc since it's not fixing a > regression. Also, this series includes other cleanups that are not > really fixes either. At this point of the -rc cycle, we need to focus > only on regression fixes. > >> Delaying this to v3.19-rc2, which will require an atomic fixing of its users? >> Any other option? > > I don't see any users of this in -next yet, so I think doing a simple > patch to the prototype and fixing up any users before they hit -next is > the right approach. Errors will be ignored, but that's not change from > today. :) > > Then the rest of this cleanup and behavior change stuff can continue to > be reviewed and get broader testing before merge. Okay, I will follow your suggestions and send a patch that only change the prototype, intended as a fix for rc[n]. Kind regards Uffe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |