Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:14:35 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
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
Message-ID: <20200624161435.GI954398@dell>
References: <20200622151054.GW954398@dell>
 <037c0fd2-df35-5981-7ef2-c6199841650d@gmail.com>
 <20200622191133.GY954398@dell>
 <dc893ce4-8a4d-b7d9-8591-18a8b9b2ea2b@gmail.com>
 <20200623064723.GZ954398@dell>
 <83f2be78-1548-fa2b-199a-2391b2eceb47@gmail.com>
 <20200623195905.GB954398@dell>
 <6684101d-1013-2964-c247-394f9b12a194@gmail.com>
 <20200624074631.GE954398@dell>
 <d7774c42-fd41-9fab-2ea0-cd6bc7d35383@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <d7774c42-fd41-9fab-2ea0-cd6bc7d35383@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog