From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E54BC388F9 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:53:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F9220709 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:53:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=microchip.com header.i=@microchip.com header.b="CDzEV9hg" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725995AbgKKLxj (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2020 06:53:39 -0500 Received: from esa5.microchip.iphmx.com ([216.71.150.166]:57142 "EHLO esa5.microchip.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725860AbgKKLxj (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2020 06:53:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=microchip.com; i=@microchip.com; q=dns/txt; s=mchp; t=1605095619; x=1636631619; h=references:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=WSmJGeYv08kihbIdCx4Xr9p9GNTGzzp58lE9eX/ZuP8=; b=CDzEV9hgT1bGQphOtD+uPYNQ7lLEpJh73kfCHkqztEIYZyqBigI3rflG aoRbgcT96qdjdEePZRXh7hivAazfslKPF/C/GrActtPDx6AuGdlssYKhr aEewmv1RbynNwdDDEXVihuxiV/S/sDa8WetwBPjmzzNyPJZWsfyaoKthB VaQN15T1d04ZbRwVDohJMK7gbV+a33sgvaUvBWNAZ6FZFju3SlYXWdzsj 0bVwo8KDMvdFc87k609FV4Y3vRayGT9h2MXDiDfOTq4qCmfipu1aZsol+ 9jRVfAf6HD15X1NroqBt8NYevxCpSlge5CWpSydex9FMicgYRbxbV2fkR A==; IronPort-SDR: Vpk5sZaNn8l5nZ7DduYthRfjCryb7NYr1FPqIw/WSI6ptrNOjWWJgOF7ce395ziptShbSR5f8z +E66enIU5MTdecR05McBuk3xyxkFUEJZb7QMFTYCUSiVD4nTNpigMtNFyxBcmKhKbj2jgnPivz o2juzUj4beaVtF7TsIly+xuPn9/Nd9baj78aC1SC23+jdxWzyQj0Gj0KoooApXjKUGUJCChuyI x9ziOUkEqhOHYTQulL1xpBeNPsaUUCdV0J2+4Ju2j5Ukab4HBUGvqEiQCZNZUOQnAQtOWSGudS 2Wc= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,469,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="98026575" Received: from smtpout.microchip.com (HELO email.microchip.com) ([198.175.253.82]) by esa5.microchip.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 11 Nov 2020 04:53:38 -0700 Received: from chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) by chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 04:53:38 -0700 Received: from soft-dev10.microchip.com (10.10.115.15) by chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 04:53:36 -0700 References: <20201109132643.457932-1-lars.povlsen@microchip.com> <20201109132643.457932-3-lars.povlsen@microchip.com> <87361hfbwu.fsf@microchip.com> <87zh3oe0nr.fsf@microchip.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: Lars Povlsen To: Andy Shevchenko CC: Lars Povlsen , Linus Walleij , Microchip Linux Driver Support , devicetree , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , "linux-arm Mailing List" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Alexandre Belloni Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] pinctrl: pinctrl-microchip-sgpio: Add pinctrl driver for Microsemi Serial GPIO In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:53:35 +0100 Message-ID: <87wnys3y9s.fsf@microchip.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Andy Shevchenko writes: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:52 AM Lars Povlsen > wrote: >> Andy Shevchenko writes: >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 5:51 PM Lars Povlsen wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:27 PM Lars Povlsen wrote: > > ... > >> >> >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> >> > >> >> > Are you sure? IIRC internally we are using ENOTSUPP. >> >> > >> >> > Couple of drivers seem to be wrongly using the other one. >> >> >> >> Checkpatch complains about ENOTSUPP: >> >> >> >> # ENOTSUPP is not a standard error code and should be avoided in new patches. >> >> # Folks usually mean EOPNOTSUPP (also called ENOTSUP), when they type ENOTSUPP. >> > >> > checkpatch is wrong if this is internal code and to me sounds like >> > it's not going out of the kernel. >> > >> > ... >> >> As it appears there are different opinions on this I'll let the pinctrl >> maintainer decide. > > There are no other opinions. > Read description of struct pinconf_ops and fix the code. > checkpatch is simply wrong here. Lets no start a war :-) - I'll change it... > >> >> >> + err = -EOPNOTSUPP; >> >> > >> >> > Ditto. >> >> >> >> Ditto. >> > >> > Ditto. Cheers, ---Lars -- Lars Povlsen, Microchip