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

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Ulf,

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> 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. :-)

The code to handle the return value could still get in in v3.18-rc.
So the errors would only be unhandled for a short while in -next.

> Let's see what Rafael thinks.

Right.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds