Hi, On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 07:03:10AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > But my gut feeling says to stay concervative and not touch this code - > > we don't know what uses it and how much we would break by "fixing" it. > > The current situation is not that big of a deal IMVHO and I'd be willing > > to accept the small inconcistency versus possibly breaking userspace. > > I remember I saw some discussions about it in the past at bluesmoke ML, > saying that -ENODEV is the expected behavior when this is not supported. > > Changing from -ENODEV to "N/A" will break anything that would be relying > on the previous behavior. So, I think that such change will for sure break > userspace. > > If we're willing to change it, not creating the "sdram_scrub_rate" sysfs > node is less likely to affect userspace. yeah, I agree with this. Guess we shouldn't be creating files which aren't supported by the underlying HW and having a read() return -ENODEV is quite weird IMO since that's actually 'breaking' read() interface although that's up to interpretations. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
