[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6d8dc9dba73e0a6274e9f8d891b8fcb8@walle.cc>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 16:37:44 +0100
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: AceLan Kao <acelan.kao@...onical.com>,
Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,
Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@...nel.org>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Kamal Dasu <kamal.dasu@...adcom.com>,
Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@....net>,
Mario Kicherer <dev@...herer.org>,
Chuanhong Guo <gch981213@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] spi: Replace -ENOTSUPP with -EOPNOTSUPP in op
checking
>> The purpose of this patch is to distinguish the "operation not
>> support"
>> error from the generic "not support", so that drivers could better
>> handle different errors.
>
> What is the intended distinction between the two?
The commit message is misleading. The intention is to replace
ENOTSUPP with EOPNOTUPP for two reasons:
(1) checkpatch will complain about the use of ENOTSUPP and apparently
should only be used with NFS
(2) more importantly, spi-nor already uses EOPNOTSUPP, but calls to
spi-mem might return ENOTSUPP. We'd like to unify this.
-michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists