Subject: [PATCHv4 4/7] hwspinlock/core: add common OF helpers

From: [email-masked] (Suman Anna)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:38:23 -0600

Hi Ohad,

On 03/02/2014 02:19 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Suman Anna <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> On 02/07/2014 04:49 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>>> It seems to be standard practice to pass the error value back to the
>>>> consumer, so you should
>>>> return ERR_PTR(ret); here instead of the NULL...
>>>
>>>
>>> I have modelled the return values in this function based on the return
>>> values in the existing hwspin_lock_request interfaces. I would need to
>>> change those functions as well.
>>>
>>> Ohad,
>>> Do you have any objections to the return code convention change?
>>
>> Unless strictly needed, I prefer we don't switch to the ERR_PTR code
>> convention, as it reduces code readability and increases chances of
>> user bugs.
>>
>> In our case, switching to ERR_PTR and friends seems only to optimize a
>> few error paths, and I'm not sure it's a big win over simplicity.
>
> When introducing the ability to reference a hwspin lock via a phandle
> in device tree it makes a big difference to be able to differ between
> the case of "initialization failed" or "device not yet probed"; so
> that the client knows if it should fail or retry later.
>

Can you confirm the changes you want me to make, so that I can refresh 
and post a v5 for 3.15?

regards
Suman