On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 14:59 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 2:43 PM Matti Vaittinen
> <matti.vaitti...@fi.rohmeurope.com> wrote:
> > The checkpacth instructs to switch from ENOSUPP to EOPNOTSUPP.
> > > WARNING: ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP
> >
> > Make the gpiolib allow drivers to return both so driver developers
> > can avoid one of the checkpatch complaints.
>
> Internally we are fine to use the ENOTSUPP.
> Checkpatch false positives there.
I agree. OTOH, the checkpatch check makes sense to user-visible stuff.
Yet, the checkpatch has hard time guessing what is user-visible - so it
probably is easiest to nag about all ENOTSUPP uses as it does now.
> I doubt we need this change. Rather checkpatch should rephrase this
> to
> point out that this is only applicable to _user-visible_ error path.
> Cc'ed Joe.
Yes, thanks for pulling Joe in.
Anyways, no matter what the warning says, all false positives are
annoying. I don't see why we should stay with ENOTSUPP in gpiolib?
(other than the burden of changing it).
But I have no strong opinion on this. All options I see have downsides.
Accepting both ENOTSUPP and EOPNOTSUPP is the easy way to avoid
allowing checkpatch warnings - but I admit it isn't stylish.
Converting all ENOTSUPP cases inside gpiolib to EOPNOTSUPP is teodious
although end result might be nicer.
Leaving it as is gives annoying false-positives to driver developers.
My personal preference was this patch - others can have other view like
Andy does. I'll leave this to community/maintainers to evaluate :)
Best Regards
Matti Vaittinen
