From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Dooks Subject: Re: GPIO: Fix probe() error return in gpio driver probes Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:20:22 +0000 Message-ID: <20090108122022.GO12431@fluff.org.uk> References: <20090107125619.052023040@fluff.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090107125619.052023040-elnMNo+KYs3pIgCt6eIbzw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: david-b-yBeKhBN/0LDR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, spi-devel-general-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, Ben Dooks List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 12:56:19PM +0000, ben-elnMNo+KYs3pIgCt6eIbzw@public.gmane.org wrote: > A number of drivers in drivers/gpio return -ENODEV when confronted > with missing setup parameters such as the platform data. However, > returning -ENODEV causes the driver layer to silently ignore the > driver as it assumes the probe did not find anything and was only > speculative. > > To make life easier to discern why a driver is not being attached, > change to returning -EINVAL, which is a better description of the > fact that the driver data was not valid. > > Also add a set of dev_dbg() statements to the error paths to provide > an better explanation of the error as there may be more that one point > in the driver. sorry, sent from the wrong email address please ignore. -- Ben (ben-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, http://www.fluff.org/) 'a smiley only costs 4 bytes'