Hi Linus, 2015-06-02 21:56 GMT+09:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Masahiro Yamada > <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The pinctrl_register() just returns NULL on error, so the callers >> can not know the exact reason of the failure. >> >> Some of the pinctrl drivers return -EINVAL, some -ENODEV, and some >> -ENOMEM on error of pinctrl_register() , although the error code >> might be different from the actual cause of the error. >> >> This new function, pinctrl_register_reason(), helps the drivers get >> and return the appropriate error code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > > It should be named pinctrl_register_strict() or something. > "reason" is anyways wrong, should be "cause", but please > use _strict(). OK, I will do it. >> If this patch is accepted, I can send a series to replace >> the pinctrl_register() in each driver with pinctrl_register_reason(). > > If it is replaced *everywhere* there is no point in keeping > a separate function. Then you should just do a big > patch changing all usage sites and the original function. If nobody is opposed to this, I can send a single big patch replacing all the references. In that case, we would not need _strict(). My concern is the sudden change of the function interface will break drivers that are under development out of the source tree. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada -- 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