Hi Paul,
On 2/23/2011 11:05 AM, Nayak, Rajendra wrote:
Hi Paul,
From: Paul Walmsley [mailto:p...@pwsan.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:40 AM
Hi Rajendra
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
The original behavior of the iterators, to terminate upon
encountering an error, seems fine to me. The only problem
I faced was that they fail silently and go undetected, unless
their user catches the return value and WARN's, which I found
was not the case with most users, mainly those of
omap_hwmod_for_each_by_class.
I was thinking of keeping the behaviour of these iterators
same for now and add WARN's in these iterators itself upon
an error, so its seen even if the user fails to catch it.
What's your opinion on adding the pr_err() or WARN() into the code that
the iterator calls for each hwmod? That code should know why something
fails, so it should be able to provide a more detailed error message.
Of
course, it is not as general a solution...
I agree, if the callback functions are written with proper errors
or WARN's, they are the right place where most of the details'
exist. So maybe we don't need these in the iterator's after all.
So to conclude, I will drop the #3 and just push #1 and #2.
#1 is fine with addition of the WARN.
#2 does return an error but does not print anything, but since each call
(_init_main_clk, _init_interface_clks, _init_opt_clks) does report
some pr_warn in case of error, this is fine.
Regards,
Benoit
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
