On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:44:32AM +0530, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 04:09:38PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:33:09 +0500 > > > "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> The gpio library should return -EPROBE_DEFER in gpio_request > > >> if gpio driver is not ready. > > > > > > Why not use the perfectly good existing error codes we have for this ? > > > > > > We have EAGAIN and EUNATCH both of which look sensible. > > > > I want a distinct error code for probe deferral so that a) it doesn't > > overlap with something a driver is already doing, and b) so that all > > the users can be found again at a later date. > > > > That said, I'm not in agreement with this patch. It is fine for gpio > > lib to have a code that means the pin doesn't exist (yet), but the > > device driver needs to be the one to decide whether or not it is > > appropriate to use probe deferral. > > During gpio_request, driver gpio_request is not available. How can we expect > driver to request deferred probe in this case? If gpio_request fails, the driver can then explicitly make the decision to return -EPROBE_DEFER. It isn't forced to pass on the error code from gpio_request(). g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
