From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751096Ab1ADXFL (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:05:11 -0500 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:41166 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750801Ab1ADXFJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:05:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 00:05:08 +0100 From: Wolfram Sang To: Greg KH Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Brownell Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Annotate gpio-configuration with __must_check Message-ID: <20110104230508.GA18363@pengutronix.de> References: <1294159868-4989-1-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de> <20110104202718.GA31444@suse.de> <20110104212916.GA14436@pengutronix.de> <20110104213414.GA6774@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110104213414.GA6774@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:6f8:1178:2:215:17ff:fe12:23b0 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wsa@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > should fail if it cannot be requested. Or not. Things get worse for > > architectures I never used before. This is why I think it is really bet= ter to > > let people do the fixups who have/understand the hardware in question. > > Otherwise the fixups could indeed be more harmful than helpful. >=20 > Sure, they could be more harmful, but at least try. Make the patches > up, submit them to the maintainers, and if they are wrong, they will be > the best to fix it up properly. Well, I could generalize all cases and always issue a WARN() if the request fails. But this would just move a compile-time warning into a runtime warni= ng. Also, I have my doubts that even the arch/mach-maintainers know all the boa= rds and their peculiarities. There are thousands of them. Kind regards, Wolfram --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk0jp6QACgkQD27XaX1/VRsTzwCgin8EKY94gE24ZiTNIGcVJn83 u6YAnjlOwk889mitgaMRwjVsxG5p+66E =4/6t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy--