On Sun, 2021-09-19 at 21:33 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:31 AM zhiyong.tao <
zhiyong.tao@mediatek.com> wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 18:09 +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+       if (!found) {
+               dev_err(hw->dev, "Not support rsel value %d
Ohm
for
pin = %d (%s)\n",
+                       arg, desc->number, desc->name);
+               return -EOPNOTSUPP;

I believe ENOTSUPP is the correct one. EOPNOTSUPP seems to be
network
related.

if we change it as "ENOTSUPP", it will report warning"ENOTSUPP
is
not
SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUP" when checking patch.

The context surrounding this warning seems to be that ENOTSUPP is
hard
for userspace to understand. AFAIK the return code here does not
get
passed to userspace? And the pinctrl core does check for EINVAL
or
ENOTSUPP, so I think this is a valid use case.

Linus?

Hi Linus,

Do you have some suggestion for the warning issue?

Ignore the warning. We use this code in the pinctrl subsystem.

The pinctrl subsystem has no userspace API so that is certainly
not a problem.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Thanks for your suggestion,

we will change it in the next version.

Thanks
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel