Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 01:53:24PM CEST, jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 01:18:59PM CEST, poros@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>Arkadiusz Kubalewski píše v Pá 09. 06. 2023 v 14:18 +0200:
>>> From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>[...]
>
>Could you perhaps cut out the text you don't comment? Saves some time
>finding your reply.
>
>
>>> +static int
>>> +dpll_set_from_nlattr(struct dpll_device *dpll, struct genl_info
>>> *info)
>>> +{
>>> + const struct dpll_device_ops *ops = dpll_device_ops(dpll);
>>> + struct nlattr *tb[DPLL_A_MAX + 1];
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> + nla_parse(tb, DPLL_A_MAX, genlmsg_data(info->genlhdr),
>>> + genlmsg_len(info->genlhdr), NULL, info->extack);
>>> + if (tb[DPLL_A_MODE]) {
>>Hi,
>>
>>Here should be something like:
>> if (!ops->mode_set)
>> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
>Why? All drivers implement that.
>I believe that it's actullaly better that way. For a called setting up
>the same mode it is the dpll in, there should be 0 return by the driver.
>Note that driver holds this value. I'd like to keep this code as it is.
Actually, you are correct Petr, my mistake. Actually, no driver
implements this. Arkadiusz, could you please remove this op and
possibly any other unused op? It will be added when needed.
Thanks!
>
>[...]
