On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 02:13:28AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pinconf-generic: check error value EOPNOTSUPP > > > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:02 PM Peng Fan (OSS) <peng.fan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > The SCMI error value SCMI_ERR_SUPPORT maps to linux error value > > > > '-EOPNOTSUPP', so when dump configs, need check the error value > > > > EOPNOTSUPP, otherwise there will be log "ERROR READING CONFIG > > SETTING". > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > (...) > > > > ret = pin_config_get_for_pin(pctldev, pin, &config); > > > > /* These are legal errors */ > > > > - if (ret == -EINVAL || ret == -ENOTSUPP) > > > > + if (ret == -EINVAL || ret == -ENOTSUPP || ret == > > > > + -EOPNOTSUPP) > > > > > > TBH it's a bit odd to call an in-kernel API such as > > > pin_config_get_for_pin() and get -EOPNOTSUPP back. But it's not like I care > > a lot, so patch applied. > > > > Hmm... I would like actually to get this being consistent. The documentation > > explicitly says that in-kernel APIs uses Linux error code and not POSIX one. > > Would you please share me the documentation? > +1, I am interested in knowing more about this as I wasn't aware of this. > > > > This check opens a Pandora box. > > > > FWIW, it just like dozen or so drivers that needs to be fixed, I prefer to have > > them being moved to ENOTSUPP, rather this patch. > > I see many patches convert to use EOPNOTSUPP by checking git log. > > And checkpatch.pl reports warning for using ENOTSUPP. > Exactly, I do remember changing ENOTSUPP to EOPNOTSUPP based on checkpatch suggestion. So either the checkpatch.pl or the document you are referring is inconsistent and needs fixing either way. -- Regards, Sudeep