[PATCH 4/4] PM / Domains: Let the ->attach_dev() callback return an error code

[Ulf Hansson]

On 29 October 2014 10:32, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert at linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 28 October 2014 21:31, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert at linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> 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 at linaro.org>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>> Doing it ASAP (in v3.18-rc3)?
>>> Delaying this to v3.19-rc2, which will require an atomic fixing of its users?
>>> Any other option?
>>
>> I would prefer if we consider 3.18-rc[x|. That's applies also to the
>> below patchset, which actually fixes an issue. It would simplify the
>> process of handling other SOC specific patches which adds PM domain
>> support.
>>
>> [PATCH v3 0/9] PM / Domains: Fix race conditions during boot
>
> v3.18-rc[x] sounds fine.
>
>> Obviously the patches needs to be reviewed, I guess we are still in
>> the process of doing that.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Perhaps we can get just the prototype change of ->attach_dev() in first?
> That leaves some time for reviewing the code changes to actually handle
> the return value, and unblocks platform patches using ->attach_dev() soon,
> which are planned to enter in v3.19-rc.

That's an option.

On the other hand, that would mean that the errors that the
attach_dev() callback would return from you SOC specific code, would
just be ignored until v3.19-rc. That's not so good, hiding errors. :-)

Let's see what Rafael thinks.

Kind regards
Uffe