On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 10:06 +0100, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
> On 1/27/24 01:43, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
>
>
> > @@ -1142,7 +1170,7 @@ static int wilc_spi_init(struct wilc *wilc, bool resume)
> > }
> > if (ret) {
> > dev_err(&spi->dev, "Failed with CRC7 on and off.\n");
> > - return ret;
> > + return -ENODEV;
>
> You are still rewriting error codes here. At a lower level, sure, but still...
> When I suggested setting -ENODEV at lower level, I was thinking about places
> where no explicit error code was already in use, but
> spi_internal_read/spi_internal_write already generate proper error codes. Or am
> I missing a constraint, like the probe chain really needing -ENODEV ?
Lower-level errors are often not meaningful at the higher level. For
example, attempting to read a register over SPI may cause a CRC error
if the device doesn't exist. That would result in -EINVAL, even though
there was nothing invalid about the read, it's just that the device
wasn't there.
But I don't feel strongly about it. v5 of the patch does what you
want.
--david
