On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:53 AM Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I was thinking about again to change from NULL to EPROBE_DEFER. > > extcon_get_extcon_dev() function was almost called in the probe function. > But, this function might be called on other position instead of probe. *Might be* sounds like a theoretical thing, care to share what is in you mind? Current users and more important the new coming one are *all* doing the same. > ENODEV is more correct error instead of EPROBE_DEFER. So, you are proposing to continue duplicating conversion from ENODEV to EPROBE_DEFER in *each* caller? > Sorry. I'll withdraw my opinion related acked-by tag until we are clarifying it. I honestly don't know what to clarify here. When we would have a real case we can change API correspondingly. For now, the score is 5:0 with use cases in practice. > On 2018년 11월 12일 09:24, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > > On 2018년 11월 11일 03:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> All current users of extcon_get_extcon_dev() API considers > >> an extcon device a mandatory to appear. Thus, they all convert > >> NULL pointer to -EPROBE_DEFER error code. > >> > >> There is one more caller anticipated with the same requirements. > >> > >> To decrease a code duplication and a burden to the callers, > >> return -EPROBE_DEFER directly from extcon_get_extcon_dev(). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
