From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: GPIO: Fix probe() error return in gpio driver probes Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:11:17 -0800 Message-ID: <200812141611.17555.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <20081212152426.745254309@fluff.org.uk> <20081214213349.GA19483@fluff.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081214213349.GA19483-elnMNo+KYs3pIgCt6eIbzw@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ben Dooks Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 14 December 2008, Ben Dooks wrote: > Has anyone reveiwed this patch? Are there any comments, or can this > be commited at somepoint (even if it is during the next merge window)? I was thinking that -EINVAL is almost the least informative diagnostic code possible, since so many places return it that it's usually hard to find out *which* invalid parameter triggered ... Is there a less-overloaded code you could return? I have no issue with the patch other than that. - Dave