From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/7] opp: remove -ENOSYS from dummy implementation of of_init_opp_table() Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 14:16:22 +0100 Message-ID: <537CA726.5060909@arm.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" Cc: Sudeep Holla , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Arvind Chauhan , "inderpal.s@samsung.com" , "nm@ti.com" , "chander.kashyap@linaro.org" , "pavel@ucw.cz" , "len.brown@intel.com" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi Viresh, $subject perhaps should be "replace/remove -EINVAL.." instead of "remove -ENOSYS ..." On 21/05/14 12:09, Viresh Kumar wrote: > When any of CONFIG_PM_OPP or CONFIG_OF isn't enabled we have a dummy > implementation of of_init_opp_table() routine, it returns -EINVAL currently. > -EINVAL can be returned from other places within the real implementations of > of_init_opp_table() and so caller wouldn't be able to differentiate between > those two cases. > > Make it return -ENOSYS instead for better handling. > [Nit] How about "it's more appropriate to return -ENOSYS as since the function is not implemented" ? Otherwise it looks fine to me. Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla > Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > --- > include/linux/pm_opp.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/pm_opp.h b/include/linux/pm_opp.h > index 0330217..6668150 100644 > --- a/include/linux/pm_opp.h > +++ b/include/linux/pm_opp.h > @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int of_init_opp_table(struct device *dev); > #else > static inline int of_init_opp_table(struct device *dev) > { > - return -EINVAL; > + return -ENOSYS; > } > #endif > >