On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 04:47:19PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 06:38:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 02:13:28AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > > > > 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: ... > > > > 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. > > > > How is that related? You mean for GPIO/pin control drivers? > > > > > And checkpatch.pl reports warning for using ENOTSUPP. > > > > checkpatch has false-positives, this is just one of them. > > Fair enough. > > > > BTW: is there any issue if using EOPNOTSUPP here? > > > > Yes. we don't want to be inconsistent. Using both in one subsystem is asking > > for troubles. If you want EOPNOTSUPP, please convert *all* users and drop > > ENOTSUPP completely (series out of ~100+ patches I believe :-), which probably > > will be not welcome). > > Well, I don't agree with that 100% now since this is GPIO/pinmux sub-system > practice only. git grep -lw ENOTSUPP utterly disagrees with you. > What if we change the source/root error cause(SCMI) in this > case and keep GPIO/pinmux happy today but tomorrow when this needs to be > used in some other subsystem which uses EOPNOTSUPP by default/consistently. This is different case. For that we may shadow error codes with explicit comments. > Now how do we address that then, hence I mentioned I am not 100% in agreement > now while I was before knowing that this is GPIO/pinmux strategy. > > I don't know how to proceed now 🙁. KISS principle? There are only 10+ drivers to fix (I showed a rough list) to use ENOTSUPP instead of 100s+ otherwise. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko