Messages in this thread | | | From | Peng Fan <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH] pinctrl: pinconf-generic: check error value EOPNOTSUPP | Date | Fri, 5 Apr 2024 02:13:28 +0000 |
| |
Hi Andy,
> 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@oss.nxp.com> > wrote: > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.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@nxp.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.
Would you please share me the documentation?
> > 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.
I see many patches convert to use EOPNOTSUPP by checking git log.
And checkpatch.pl reports warning for using ENOTSUPP.
BTW: is there any issue if using EOPNOTSUPP here?
Thanks, Peng. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko >
| |