Hello,
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:49:57PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Marek,
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 11:03, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 7/17/23 09:42, Michal Suchánek wrote:
...
More generally, what is the overall vision for these functions returning always zero?
Should the return value be kept in case the underlying implementation changes and errors can happen in the future, and consequently checked?
Should the return value be removed when meaningless making these useless assignments and checks an error?
I already elimimnated a return value where using it lead to incorrect behavior but here using it or not is equally correct with the current implementation.
Probably a question for Simon, really. Personally I would be tempted to switch the function to return void.
So long as the function has its meaning documented, I think it is OK. As a separate patch, I am OK with changing device_find_first/next_child() to void, or alternatively having them return 0 on success and -ENODEV if nothing was found.
I think when there is one error condition having two ways to report it is one too many.
Thanks
Michal