On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:53:45 +0100 > Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > Hi Alan, > > > > I'm looking at a patch you wrote which can be foudn below at [1]. Are > > you sure it's correct to ignore i.e not return -ENOMEM from > > platform_device_add_data() in pcf50633_probe()? I believe if > > platform_device_add_data() returns an error we should > > platform_device_put() and return immediately. Can you tell me if you > > agree. If you don't, would you mind explaining to me why please? > > I made the change to maximise the chance of things booting up ok, but I > agree, its a pointless exercise. If we fail to add the data we should > just chuck it.
Thanks Alan, I'll get a patch out shortly. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
