On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:23:16AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:54:56PM -0700, Jeremy Fertic wrote: > > @@ -651,10 +649,12 @@ static ssize_t adt7316_store_da_high_resolution(struct device *dev, > > u8 config3; > > int ret; > > > > + if (chip->id == ID_ADT7318 || chip->id == ID_ADT7519) > > + return -EPERM; > > return -EINVAL is more appropriate than -EPERM. > > regards, > dan carpenter > I chose -EPERM because the driver uses it quite a few times in similar circumstances. At least with this driver, -EINVAL is used when the user attempts to write data that would never be valid. -EPERM is used when either the current device settings prevent some functionality from being used, or the device never supports that functionality. This patch is the latter, that these two chip ids never support this function. I'll change to -EINVAL in a v2 series, but I wonder if I should hold off on a separate patch for other instances in this driver since it will be undergoing a substantial refactoring. Is there any rule of thumb about when -EPERM is appropriate for a driver, or is -EINVAL almost always the better option? _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
