On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 10:12AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 26 May 2015 13:18:29 Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-zynq.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-zynq.c > > index 04748a4..0ff653c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-zynq.c > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-zynq.c > > @@ -1141,7 +1141,7 @@ static int zynq_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > pctrl->pctrl = pinctrl_register(&zynq_desc, &pdev->dev, pctrl); > > if (!pctrl->pctrl) > > - return -ENOMEM; > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pctrl); > > > > > > One choice seems as bad as the other to me ;-) > > Could we add a pinctrl_register_reason() variant that returns a meaningful > error code as ERR_PTR? I agree with Arnd. As long as we don't get a precise error code we can just keep the current one. Sören -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html