* Ezequiel Garcia <[email protected]> [130122 11:46]: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Tony Lindgren <[email protected]> wrote: > > * Ezequiel Garcia <[email protected]> [130122 10:17]: > >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Daniel Mack <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > I'm currently far away from my computer and can't prepare a patch for > >> > this, sorry. But I think you are right, so please just submit a patch > >> > for that, anyone :-) > >> > > >> > >> Ok, I'll try to submit a patch as soon as possible. If anyone wants to > >> do it instead, fine by me. > > > > No please go ahead as it seems that you can easily test it too. > > > > No problem. > > I now wonder if it's okey to exit upon probe failure. > In particular, the for_each should be like this: > > for_each_node_by_name(child, "nand") { > ret = gpmc_probe_nand_child(pdev, child); > if (ret < 0) { > of_node_put(child); > return ret; > } > } > > or like this: > > for_each_node_by_name(child, "nand") { > ret = gpmc_probe_nand_child(pdev, child); > WARN_ON(ret < 0); > } > > Ideas?
Well I would return and make sure the resources are freed. However, if this relates to using bootloader configured values for the few cases where we don't have the timing information for calculations available, then just doing a warning is the way to go. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
