[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACxGe6tmjQGw77NMNYLWJHMAtmF9fk_9HnHtbrMhzkKEC1HG=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:09:38 -0600
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk@...com>,
Dilan Lee <dilee@...dia.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@...aro.org>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] gpiolib: handle deferral probe error
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:33:09 +0500
> "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk@...com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The gpio library should return -EPROBE_DEFER in gpio_request
>> if gpio driver is not ready.
>
> Why not use the perfectly good existing error codes we have for this ?
>
> We have EAGAIN and EUNATCH both of which look sensible.
I want a distinct error code for probe deferral so that a) it doesn't
overlap with something a driver is already doing, and b) so that all
the users can be found again at a later date.
That said, I'm not in agreement with this patch. It is fine for gpio
lib to have a code that means the pin doesn't exist (yet), but the
device driver needs to be the one to decide whether or not it is
appropriate to use probe deferral.
g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists