[PATCH v3 05/12] powerpc/drmem: make lmb walk a bit more flexible

[Hari Bathini]

On 15/07/20 9:20 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> 
> Hari Bathini <hbathini at linux.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> @@ -534,7 +537,7 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc(unsigned long node,
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES
>>  	if (depth == 1 &&
>>  	    strcmp(uname, "ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory") == 0) {
>> -		walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, early_init_drmem_lmb);
>> +		walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, NULL, early_init_drmem_lmb);
> 
> walk_drmem_lmbs_early() can now fail. Should this failure be propagated
> as a return value of early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc()?
  
> 
>>  		return 0;
>>  	}
>>  #endif
> <snip>
> 
>> @@ -787,7 +790,7 @@ static int __init parse_numa_properties(void)
>>  	 */
>>  	memory = of_find_node_by_path("/ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory");
>>  	if (memory) {
>> -		walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, numa_setup_drmem_lmb);
>> +		walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, NULL, numa_setup_drmem_lmb);
> 
> Similarly here. Now that this call can fail, should
> parse_numa_properties() handle or propagate the failure?

They would still not fail unless the callbacks early_init_drmem_lmb() & numa_setup_drmem_lmb()
are updated to have failure scenarios. Also, these call sites always ignored failure scenarios
even before walk_drmem_lmbs() was introduced. So, I prefer to keep them the way they are?

Thanks
Hari