On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:52 AM Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Andy Shevchenko writes: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 5:51 PM Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:27 PM Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > >> >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > >> > > >> > Are you sure? IIRC internally we are using ENOTSUPP. > >> > > >> > Couple of drivers seem to be wrongly using the other one. > >> > >> Checkpatch complains about ENOTSUPP: > >> > >> # ENOTSUPP is not a standard error code and should be avoided in new patches. > >> # Folks usually mean EOPNOTSUPP (also called ENOTSUP), when they type ENOTSUPP. > > > > checkpatch is wrong if this is internal code and to me sounds like > > it's not going out of the kernel. > > > > ... > > As it appears there are different opinions on this I'll let the pinctrl > maintainer decide. There are no other opinions. Read description of struct pinconf_ops and fix the code. checkpatch is simply wrong here. > >> >> + err = -EOPNOTSUPP; > >> > > >> > Ditto. > >> > >> Ditto. > > > > Ditto. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
