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=-11.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=ham 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 B7CFDC4727C for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 07:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855FE2311B for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 07:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731134AbgJAHu3 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 03:50:29 -0400 Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.200]:40701 "EHLO relay7-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725892AbgJAHuS (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 03:50:18 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 91.224.148.103 Received: from xps13 (unknown [91.224.148.103]) (Authenticated sender: miquel.raynal@bootlin.com) by relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C3872000C; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 07:50:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 09:50:12 +0200 From: Miquel Raynal To: Pratyush Yadav Cc: , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 01/15] mtd: spi-nor: core: use EOPNOTSUPP instead of ENOTSUPP Message-ID: <20201001095012.5c331bf8@xps13> In-Reply-To: <20201001073425.txsfdngrsugsy6uf@ti.com> References: <20200930185732.6201-1-p.yadav@ti.com> <20200930185732.6201-2-p.yadav@ti.com> <5340adf5-1bb2-1eff-3812-6976b3b76faf@microchip.com> <20201001073425.txsfdngrsugsy6uf@ti.com> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Pratyush Yadav wrote on Thu, 1 Oct 2020 13:04:27 +0530: > On 01/10/20 07:19AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: > > On 9/30/20 9:57 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe It seems that your mailer/server introduced that line automatically, can you do something to avoid it? > > > > > > ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code. Using EOPNOTSUPP is preferred > > > in its stead. I ran into this checkpatch.pl error recently, I count 80+ iterations in drivers/mtd/ so perhaps having a subsystem wide replacement will be nice. I'm fine with this patch though as it is addressing all SPI-NOR cases already. Cheers, Miquèl > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Tudor Ambarus > > > > The R-b tag should be after your S-o-b. This applies to other > > patches in the series too. No need to resubmit, it can be fixed when > > applying. > > If we're using chronological order then I first added your Reviewed-by, > and then signed off before resending the patches. So that way s-o-b > comes after r-b. > > Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Use whichever order you prefer. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pratyush Yadav > > > --- > > > drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 10 +++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > > > index 0369d98b2d12..4d0f8d165544 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > > > @@ -2281,7 +2281,7 @@ static int spi_nor_hwcaps_pp2cmd(u32 hwcaps) > > > *@nor: pointer to a 'struct spi_nor' > > > *@op: pointer to op template to be checked > > > * > > > - * Returns 0 if operation is supported, -ENOTSUPP otherwise. > > > + * Returns 0 if operation is supported, -EOPNOTSUPP otherwise. > > > */ > > > static int spi_nor_spimem_check_op(struct spi_nor *nor, > > > struct spi_mem_op *op) > > > @@ -2295,12 +2295,12 @@ static int spi_nor_spimem_check_op(struct spi_nor *nor, > > > op->addr.nbytes = 4; > > > if (!spi_mem_supports_op(nor->spimem, op)) { > > > if (nor->mtd.size > SZ_16M) > > > - return -ENOTSUPP; > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > > > /* If flash size <= 16MB, 3 address bytes are sufficient */ > > > op->addr.nbytes = 3; > > > if (!spi_mem_supports_op(nor->spimem, op)) > > > - return -ENOTSUPP; > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > } > > > > > > return 0; > > > @@ -2312,7 +2312,7 @@ static int spi_nor_spimem_check_op(struct spi_nor *nor, > > > *@nor: pointer to a 'struct spi_nor' > > > *@read: pointer to op template to be checked > > > * > > > - * Returns 0 if operation is supported, -ENOTSUPP otherwise. > > > + * Returns 0 if operation is supported, -EOPNOTSUPP otherwise. > > > */ > > > static int spi_nor_spimem_check_readop(struct spi_nor *nor, > > > const struct spi_nor_read_command *read) > > > @@ -2338,7 +2338,7 @@ static int spi_nor_spimem_check_readop(struct spi_nor *nor, > > > *@nor: pointer to a 'struct spi_nor' > > > *@pp: pointer to op template to be checked > > > * > > > - * Returns 0 if operation is supported, -ENOTSUPP otherwise. > > > + * Returns 0 if operation is supported, -EOPNOTSUPP otherwise. > > > */ > > > static int spi_nor_spimem_check_pp(struct spi_nor *nor, > > > const struct spi_nor_pp_command *pp) > > > -- > > > 2.28.0 > > > > > > Thanks, Miquèl