[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F368D6F.90702@ladisch.de>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:46:55 +0100
From: Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>
To: Chris Boot <bootc@...tc.net>
CC: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] firewire-sbp2: Ignore SBP-2 targets on the local
node
Chris Boot wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 12:16, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
>> Stefan Richter wrote:
>>> On Feb 10 Chris Boot wrote:
>>>> + /* ignore targets on the local node */
>>>> + if (device->node == device->card->local_node) {
>>>> + dev_set_drvdata(&unit->device, NULL);
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> But I do wonder: Shouldn't this be implemented by returning from the
>>> driver probe method with an error? If so, which errno should be returned?
>>
>> -ENODEV or -ENXIO.
>
> Perhaps,
It's what really_probe() in drivers/base/dd.c requires:
if (ret != -ENODEV && ret != -ENXIO) {
/* driver matched but the probe failed */
printk(KERN_WARNING
"%s: probe of %s failed with error %d\n",
drv->name, dev_name(dev), ret);
} else {
pr_debug("%s: probe of %s rejects match %d\n",
drv->name, dev_name(dev), ret);
}
> but the meaning of those isn't quite what is happening here. We aren't
> saying the device doesn't exist or is inaccessible, just that we don't
> want to talk to it...
ENODEV does not mean "no device" but "no _such_ device".
Regards,
Clemens
--
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