[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Ve837d_2UEQRMJEcmOdPVdqSAKv+dJje057uJouCPAe9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 12:01:50 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_probe() stub
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:38 AM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:22:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > In case the PWM LPSS module is not provided, allow users to be
> > compiled with a help of a pwm_lpss_probe() stub.
...
> > +static inline
> > +struct pwm_lpss_chip *pwm_lpss_probe(struct device *dev, void __iomem *base,
> > + const struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo *info)
> > +{
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>
> Would it be more consistent to return the same value as the pwmchip_add
> stub does?
Then I will lose the ability to distinguish between absent driver (or
device) and actual error during the probing of it. Any suggestions on
how to do that better?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists