On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:52:02AM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:10:07PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > It's generally nice to the user if you can report as many bugs as you can > > rather than fail on the first one. > > Hrm, I guess. There's only so far it's worth going to achieve that > though. > > > It's also nice to someone down the road trying to turn this code into a > > library if it passes return status up the call chain gracefully. > > Can you think of any reason we'd want to do that?
Anything that wants to do something automated with device tree source that doesn't fit neatly into command-line execution. Nothing specific. > And that would require fixing so many other places that the two cases > which do return an error (that's including binary includes) hardly > signify. Yeah, I just wanted to avoid going further down that path if possible. I won't protest too loudly if the general consensus is to just die(), though. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
