On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.bell...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> I'm actually wondering if the checks for the ops->pin_config_get are not > a bit overkill. We check for that function in: > - pinconf_check_ops() > - before calling it in pin_config_get_for_pin() which is only used > once, in the same path : dump using debugfs and having ops->is_generic > == true > - in pinconf_pins_show() which is the function calling also in the same > path > > What I would do is: > - remove all the checks in pinconf_check_ops() and pinconf_pins_show() > so that people are not pressured to implement a function that is simply > never used. > - modify pin_config_get_for_pin() by removing the dev_err() call and > returning -ENOTSUPP instead of -EINVAL (it doesn't change the behaviour > but I feel -ENOTSUPP is more appropriate) > > I have a patch ready but I can't test it as I don't own any of the > is_generic platforms. Mail it out with a [CFT: ] "call for testing" prefix. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
