From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc: andy.shevchenko@gmail.com, michael@walle.cc, robh+dt@kernel.org,
broonie@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux@roeck-us.net,
andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mfd: core: Make a best effort attempt to match devices with the correct of_nodes
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 11:25:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53200e52-bc53-1351-dc90-b775c29f8456@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200624161435.GI954398@dell>
On 2020-06-24 11:14, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> On 2020-06-24 02:46, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2020-06-23 14:59, Lee Jones wrote:
>>
>> < big snip >
>>
>> Thanks for the replies in the above portion.
>
> NP.
>
>>>>>> But yes or no to my solution #2 (with some slight changes to
>>>>>> make it better (more gracious handling of the detected error) as
>>>>>> discussed elsewhere in the email thread)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see "[0]" above!
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAICT your solution #2 involves bombing out *all* devices if there is
>>>>> a duplicate compatible with no 'reg' property value. This is a)
>>>>> over-kill and b) not an error, as I mentioned:
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned above, I set you up to have this misunderstanding by
>>>> a mistake in one of my earlier emails. So now that I have pointed
>>>> out what I meant here by "more gracious handling of the detected
>>>> error", what do you think of my amended solution #2?
>>>
>>> Explained above, but the LT;DR is that it's not correct.
>>
>> I don't agree with you, I think my solution is better. Even if I
>> prefer my solution, I find your solution to be good enough.
>
> I still don't see how it could work, but please feel free to submit a
> subsequent patch and we can discuss it on its own merits.
>
>> So I am dropping my specific objection to returning -EAGAIN from
>> mfd_match_of_node_to_dev() when the node has previously been
>> allocated to a device.
>
> Great. Thanks for taking an interest.
>
> Does this mean I can apply your Reviewed-by?
>
No, please do not. I don't want to give the patch that strong
of an endorsement.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-24 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-11 19:10 [PATCH v2 1/3] mfd: core: Make a best effort attempt to match devices with the correct of_nodes Lee Jones
2020-06-11 19:10 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mfd: core: Fix formatting of MFD helpers Lee Jones
2020-06-12 12:27 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-11 19:10 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mfd: core: Add OF_MFD_CELL_REG() helper Lee Jones
2020-06-12 12:28 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-12 12:26 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] mfd: core: Make a best effort attempt to match devices with the correct of_nodes Frank Rowand
2020-06-15 1:19 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-15 9:26 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-18 17:34 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22 8:50 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-22 14:32 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22 14:35 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22 15:10 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-22 18:01 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22 18:04 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22 19:11 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-22 22:23 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-23 1:17 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-23 1:37 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-23 6:47 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-23 17:55 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-23 19:59 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-23 22:33 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-24 7:46 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-24 15:51 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-24 16:14 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-24 16:25 ` Frank Rowand [this message]
2020-06-22 8:09 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-22 16:09 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-22 16:53 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-23 22:21 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-24 6:45 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-23 23:03 ` Frank Rowand
2020-06-24 6:41 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-24 7:47 ` Michael Walle
2020-06-24 8:23 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-24 9:19 ` Michael Walle
2020-06-24 11:24 ` Lee Jones
2020-06-11 19:12 Lee Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53200e52-bc53-1351-dc90-b775c29f8456@gmail.com \
--to=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=michael@walle.cc \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).