On 2012-7-11 11:40, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> Good point. Return success when reading unimplemented registeres, that >> may simplify code. For we still should return -EINVAL when writing >> unimplemented registers, right? > > Yeah, I guess it's OK to return -EINVAL when *writing* to an > unimplemented register. Hopefully the caller is structured such that > we don't even try to write in that case. It'd be interesting to audit > the callers and explore that, but I haven't done that. Hi Bjorn, Seems it would be better to return error code for unimplemented registers, otherwise following code will becomes more complex. A special error code for unimplemented registers, such as -EIO? static void rtl_disable_clock_request(struct pci_dev *pdev) { u16 ctl; if (!pci_pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, &ctl)) { ctl &= ~PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_CLKREQ_EN; pci_pcie_capability_write_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, ctl); } } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html