From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0153FCDB46E for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:52:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1441862AbjJLRwV (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:52:21 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36796 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1379624AbjJLRwT (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:52:19 -0400 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AF3ACA; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:52:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1697133137; x=1728669137; h=message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date:in-reply-to: references:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=6t7X2w/3C7D9w+nEdJJDSIhuapkwmqEAdLFRUJInO9I=; b=UQyVwMclxPMrcuywmSWSkuaI4Zg2bMqnG/U4NmmWKXKXEqj5k7fTPb+O FfU9k/U8ULrgS0Q0CCdQsyJGoxe9mI89uSeWO6MWeuMZ6L5OGl7Mwkt6k 8hEyPQFTxCDI8T8dP1rirer0V12UDPAhaJuyjPSfJ9n9x5Lo0MJObFIbK M8/ZyKuJHvTGoaCooZV4Tb2tPzdHZmiUZRg3v7PKqRtd3WYPR+P+dsOEz Zu0NYlSnOUSYQjOdBiEd33IwrZzskccMq3h1L/DlXIbs0w21xCLJ0a1fL hkvN7tYOfq25IprFTFFUyhxlHaPbkXjhzG91qtZj/VDC0CLBpMR0Fn7jA Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10861"; a="451487320" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.03,219,1694761200"; d="scan'208";a="451487320" Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Oct 2023 10:52:17 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10861"; a="928092841" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.03,219,1694761200"; d="scan'208";a="928092841" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Oct 2023 10:52:17 -0700 Received: from [10.54.75.156] (debox1-desk1.jf.intel.com [10.54.75.156]) by linux.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1D635807A3; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7f2fd7a054912960c6599e4a62e2095d1567aab8.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 09/16] platform/x86/intel/pmc: Allow pmc_core_ssram_init to fail From: "David E. Box" Reply-To: david.e.box@linux.intel.com To: Ilpo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E4rvinen?= Cc: LKML , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, rajvi.jingar@linux.intel.com Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:52:16 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <20231012023840.3845703-1-david.e.box@linux.intel.com> <20231012023840.3845703-10-david.e.box@linux.intel.com> Organization: David E. Box Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2023-10-12 at 18:01 +0300, Ilpo J=C3=A4rvinen wrote: > On Wed, 11 Oct 2023, David E. Box wrote: >=20 > > Currently, if the PMC SSRAM initialization fails, no error is returned = and > > the only indication is that a PMC device has not been created.=C2=A0 In= stead, > > allow an error to be returned and handled directly by the caller. >=20 > You might have a good reason for it but why isn't the call into=20 > pmc_core_pmc_add() changed in this patch to take the error value into=20 > account? Good catch. The return value of pmc_core_pmc_add() is first used in the nex= t patch but should be used here. David >=20 > (I vaguely remember this was probably discussed in the context of some= =20 > earlier patch touching this area that it was about the other code dealing= =20 > with NULLs or something like that).