On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 18:25:46 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 08:08:52AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 14:59 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 2:43 PM Matti Vaittinen > > > <[email protected]> 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 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. > > > > Adding CC for Jakub Kicinski who added that particular rule/test. > > > > And the output message report of the rule is merely a suggestion indicating > > a preference. It's always up to an individual to accept/reject. > > > > At best, perhaps wordsmithing the checkpatch message might be an OK option. > > > > Thanks, Joe! > > Jakub, what do you think?
Agreed, weaving into the message that ENOTSUPP is okay internally sounds good. Perhaps we should append "if error may be returned to user space"?
