From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1759739Ab1JGKA0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 7 Oct 2011 06:00:26 -0400
Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:34362 "EHLO
	opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752039Ab1JGKAY (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 7 Oct 2011 06:00:24 -0400
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:00:22 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk@ti.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>, Dilan Lee <dilee@nvidia.com>,
        Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@linaro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] drivercore: add new error value for deferred probe
Message-ID: <20111007100022.GB19080@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <1317963790-29426-1-git-send-email-manjugk@ti.com>
 <1317963790-29426-2-git-send-email-manjugk@ti.com>
 <20111007064349.GD27508@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111007064349.GD27508@kroah.com>
X-Cookie: You will soon forget this.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 11:43:49PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:33:06AM +0500, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote:

> > +#define EPROBE_DEFER	517	/* restart probe again after some time */

> Can we really do this?  Isn't this some user/kernel api here?

> What's wrong with just "overloading" on top of an existing error code?
> Surely one of the other 516 types could be used here, right?

There was some discussion of this in the previous patch round before the
code was changed - it does end up adding an externally visible error
code but it doesn't really make any difference, especially if we don't
propagate it externally.  We've already got some other codes in a
similar style, though I can't remember the examples that were quoted
offhand.  Adding the new code avoids confusion about exactly what the
intent of the driver is.