On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 01:52 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Usually we want to know when creating a subtree fails. However, while
> introducing this patch set we have to modify the device tree and some
> times have the code to create a subtree in both the binary tree and
> the dynamically created tree.
>
> So ignore failures about this for now and enable them once we got rid
> of the binary device tree.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@petalogix.com>
> ---
> device_tree.c | 2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/device_tree.c b/device_tree.c
> index 8e9262c..6cbc5af 100644
> --- a/device_tree.c
> +++ b/device_tree.c
> @@ -203,11 +203,13 @@ int qemu_devtree_add_subnode(void *fdt, const char
> *name)
> }
>
> retval = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, parent, basename);
> +#if 0
> if (retval < 0) {
> fprintf(stderr, "FDT: Failed to create subnode %s: %s\n", name,
> fdt_strerror(retval));
> exit(1);
> }
> +#endif
Doesnt this illustrate a failure in this functions return path in the
first place?? Should this check be removed altogether and an error code
returned to the caller? That way callers (like you platform under
construction) can choose to ignore/act-on the error as appropriate.
>
> g_free(dupname);
> return retval;
