On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 17:52:46 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 05:29:50PM +0100, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > On 24. 01. 22 16:32, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > This series adds verification that values written to registers are in > > > bounds for controls since the core doesn't validate for us. > > > As discussed, those conditions should be optional to eventually catch the > > wrong applications. I don't see any benefit to report the range error back > > when there is value masking code already. The users will note when the > > unwanted values are written to the hardware, or not? > > In general I'd say that silent failures are harder to work with than > returning an error at the point where we notice that there's a problem, > assuming userspace is paying any attention to the error return at all of > course. We certainly have quite a lot of existing put() methods that do > return errors and it's not like the application isn't invoking undefined > behaviour so I don't see a problem here. I find also it's more useful to have the proper checks in general. Jaroslav, is you concern only about the compatibility of user-space? Or anything else? The compatibility is always certainly a slight issue; if this breaks really something useful and actually working stuff, we need to consider the workaround... thanks, Takashi
