Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_probe() stub

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:01:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:38 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:22:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > In case the PWM LPSS module is not provided, allow users to be
> > > compiled with a help of a pwm_lpss_probe() stub.

...

> > > +static inline
> > > +struct pwm_lpss_chip *pwm_lpss_probe(struct device *dev, void __iomem *base,
> > > +                                  const struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo *info)
> > > +{
> > > +     return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> >
> > Would it be more consistent to return the same value as the pwmchip_add
> > stub does?
> 
> Then I will lose the ability to distinguish between absent driver (or
> device) and actual error during the probing of it. Any suggestions on
> how to do that better?

Independently on the above, I think that _probe() != _chip_add() semantically
and having the same, and we know weird, return code doesn't make it anyhow
better. I believe that -ENODEV is the best fit here.

That said, I leave it as is for v3 and we may continue discussing it there.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko