Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:25:29 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        pascal paillet <p.paillet@st.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] base: core: Remove WARN_ON from link dependencies check
Message-ID: <20180712102529.GB10369@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20180712080623.21203-1-benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
 <20180712085501.GA25313@kroah.com>
 <CA+M3ks5nj2gfc+ePYg1y2w3P0cW861YkRqpuHh49n+noktPVUQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cvVnyQ+4j833TQvp"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+M3ks5nj2gfc+ePYg1y2w3P0cW861YkRqpuHh49n+noktPVUQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--cvVnyQ+4j833TQvp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:18:26AM +0200, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> 2018-07-12 10:55 GMT+02:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:

> > Why would a link already exist that is asked to be created again?  What
> > code path causes this?

> It could happen that the link exist because a device use it parent as supplier.
> That case has been describe by Marek in this thread (I forgot to add
> it in the commit message, sorry):
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/9/356

If we don't remove the warning then we'd need to have some way for
generic code to check if a link that it wants to create exists already
since if more than one thing adds links there's always a chance that two
of them will come up with the same idea for a link.  We could export
device_is_dependent() and have them check that, or add a new flag that
skips the check for example.  This is however probably going to affect a
reasonable percentage of potential users.

--cvVnyQ+4j833TQvp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAltHLJgACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9C01Qf/Yo8mNsWOqLp3z3EqeLhbvMwTrMpea8unVff9E7aS/LrnUPVLxIiW8X5O
znojR6MJEZESFT/yTUlzjEvEMP+XQPEixtj+4aSRfrGqhOA9s8nsQaTqsJdE4nqV
BRJtJ/lSX62yu01wBhvbi8jMjYPmAc4zPKMXCZ74vmcpZ1pUFGhFCJUMvPKdHY3W
QVlRGygDQvFzVTpa4CqJ8TVuiSGCxwP2YXWpVQ2iDTe3591yJasARhuGThMPFv+k
jhgIQPhWyL/pPYcfkTaWFSGYNBVjB7F4si+8SRUqfJC37cyJn3xKtpOJftxQTWe8
uUnAMJ7rJiqdShqN8ucv33SCvlC+rQ==
=SpG8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--cvVnyQ+4j833TQvp--