On 04/17/2018 07:10 AM, Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol wrote:
On 15/04/2018 21:05, Martin Kelly wrote:
On 04/15/2018 10:43 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:42:14 -0700
Martin Kelly <mkelly@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 04/11/2018 12:01 AM, Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol wrote:
This is OK for me.
Jonathan will tell us about EBUSY error code for sure if it is not
correct.
JB
Sounds good; once we hear from Jonathan, I will submit the next
revision.
Optimists. I can never make my mind up on some of the error codes.
It's not totally silly so I'm happy with EBUSY or ENODEV as you wish.
Jonathan
OK, then I will defer to Jean-Baptiste on this. Shall we go with ENODEV?
After looking into the irq kernel code, I think perhaps the best value
should be EINVAL. What it really means, is that configuration is missing
in the dts file where it shouldn't. Incorrect value seams more
meaningful in this case.
Do you agree?
JB
Yes, EINVAL is fine with me. I didn't use it because there was a note in
the aforementioned document saying that it's best to use a more specific
error code. However, none of these error codes have a clear case for
their use, and it's all a bit muddled, as Jonathan mentioned. I'll send
a revision with EINVAL later this week when I'm back to my desk with
hardware to test.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
