[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 20:05:05 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>, brgl@...ev.pl,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cristian.marussi@....com, sudeep.holla@....com,
Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pinconf-generic: check error value EOPNOTSUPP
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:02 PM Peng Fan (OSS) <peng.fan@....nxp.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> >
> > The SCMI error value SCMI_ERR_SUPPORT maps to linux error value
> > '-EOPNOTSUPP', so when dump configs, need check the error value
> > EOPNOTSUPP, otherwise there will be log "ERROR READING CONFIG SETTING".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> (...)
> > ret = pin_config_get_for_pin(pctldev, pin, &config);
> > /* These are legal errors */
> > - if (ret == -EINVAL || ret == -ENOTSUPP)
> > + if (ret == -EINVAL || ret == -ENOTSUPP || ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
>
> TBH it's a bit odd to call an in-kernel API such as pin_config_get_for_pin()
> and get -EOPNOTSUPP back. But it's not like I care a lot, so patch applied.
Hmm... I would like actually to get this being consistent. The documentation
explicitly says that in-kernel APIs uses Linux error code and not POSIX one.
This check opens a Pandora box.
FWIW, it just like dozen or so drivers that needs to be fixed, I prefer to
have them being moved to ENOTSUPP, rather this patch.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists