On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:20:55PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 04:52:27PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 04:29:11PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > + default: > > > + return -ENOTSUPP; > > > > Checkpatch seems to think that EOPNOTSUPP would be more appropriate > > as "ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code". > > It needs to be an error code that clk_set_rate() below isn't going to > return - because if clk_set_rate() does return it, then the users are > going to end up issuing an incorrect error message to the user. I > suspect clk_set_rate() could quite legitimately return -EOPNOTSUPP > or -EINVAL. > > Sadly, the CCF implementation of clk_set_rate() doesn't detail what > errors it could return, but it looks like -EBUSY, -EINVAL, or something > from pm_runtime_resume_and_get(). Thanks Russell, Understood. In that case perhaps ENOTSUPP is not such a bad choice as: a) it seems rather unlikely CCF would use it; and b) the scope of usage is well contained - the helper and any direct callers. No further objections from my side :) > > Interestingly, while looking at this, pm_runtime_resume_and_get() can > return '1' if e.g. rpm is disabled and the device is active. It looks > to me like CCF treats that as an error in multiple locations. The plot thickens...
