Am Montag, den 30.05.2016, 13:32 +0200 schrieb Hans de Goede:
> Hi,
>
> On 30-05-16 12:18, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am Freitag, den 27.05.2016, 09:06 +0200 schrieb Hans de Goede:
> > [...]
> >>>> So IMHO the following change would be a better way to fix this:
> >>>>
> >>>> --- a/include/linux/reset.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/linux/reset.h
> >>>> @@ -65,14 +65,14 @@ static inline struct reset_control *__of_reset_control_get(
> >>>> struct device_node *node,
> >>>> const char *id, int index, int shared)
> >>>> {
> >>>> - return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOTSUPP);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> static inline struct reset_control *__devm_reset_control_get(
> >>>> struct device *dev,
> >>>> const char *id, int index, int shared)
> >>>> {
> >>>> - return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOTSUPP);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> #endif /* CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER */
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm good with this. However, per Philipp on a previous thread, the
> >>> intended behavior is to return -EINVAL for the non-optional functions.
> >>>
> >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=146156945528848&w=2
> >
> > Adding Dinh to Cc: because he wanted this changed from -EINVAL.
> > My point then was that WARN_ON + -EINVAL is indented in this case.
No idea how this happened, but I meant "intended", obviously :)
regards
Philipp
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
