Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Jun 2015 00:32:33 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: add pinctrl_register_reason() to return proper error code | From | Masahiro Yamada <> |
| |
Hi Linus,
2015-06-02 21:56 GMT+09:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Masahiro Yamada > <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote: > >> The pinctrl_register() just returns NULL on error, so the callers >> can not know the exact reason of the failure. >> >> Some of the pinctrl drivers return -EINVAL, some -ENODEV, and some >> -ENOMEM on error of pinctrl_register() , although the error code >> might be different from the actual cause of the error. >> >> This new function, pinctrl_register_reason(), helps the drivers get >> and return the appropriate error code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> >> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > It should be named pinctrl_register_strict() or something. > "reason" is anyways wrong, should be "cause", but please > use _strict().
OK, I will do it.
>> If this patch is accepted, I can send a series to replace >> the pinctrl_register() in each driver with pinctrl_register_reason(). > > If it is replaced *everywhere* there is no point in keeping > a separate function. Then you should just do a big > patch changing all usage sites and the original function.
If nobody is opposed to this, I can send a single big patch replacing all the references.
In that case, we would not need _strict().
My concern is the sudden change of the function interface will break drivers that are under development out of the source tree.
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
| |