From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: GPIO: Fix probe() error return in gpio driver probes Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:46:00 +0100 Message-ID: <20081215084600.5d237fea@hyperion.delvare> References: <20081212152426.745254309@fluff.org.uk> <20081214213349.GA19483@fluff.org.uk> <200812141611.17555.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200812141611.17555.david-b-yBeKhBN/0LDR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: David Brownell Cc: Ben Dooks , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:11:17 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > 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? -EINVAL sounds right to me, all that's really missing is dev_dbg() messages in the drivers to log what the exact problem was. > I have no issue with the patch other than that. -- Jean Delvare