Andy Shevchenko writes: > 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. Lets no start a war :-) - I'll change it... > >> >> >> + err = -EOPNOTSUPP; >> >> > >> >> > Ditto. >> >> >> >> Ditto. >> > >> > Ditto. Cheers, ---Lars -- Lars Povlsen, Microchip
