On Mon, 04 Nov 2013, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Ville Syrj?l?
>
> While we can now call drm_sysfs_connector_remove() even if
> drm_connector_sysfs_add() failed, it would seem better for
> the user to know that something went wrong. So instead of
> ignoring drm_sysfs_connector_
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:23:46AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Nov 2013, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrj?l?
> >
> > While we can now call drm_sysfs_connector_remove() even if
> > drm_connector_sysfs_add() failed, it would seem better for
> > the user to know
From: Ville Syrj?l?
While we can now call drm_sysfs_connector_remove() even if
drm_connector_sysfs_add() failed, it would seem better for
the user to know that something went wrong. So instead of
ignoring drm_sysfs_connector_add() return value, checl it
and fail the whole connector registration.
