Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
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" <david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
Reply-To: david.e.box@linux.intel.com
To:     Ilpo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, rajvi.jingar@linux.intel.com
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:52:16 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ac7be397-bc9-a135-9498-72dfa1fe456d@linux.intel.com>
References: <20231012023840.3845703-1-david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
         <20231012023840.3845703-10-david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
         <ac7be397-bc9-a135-9498-72dfa1fe456d@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

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).