Re: [PATCH V2 1/7] opp: remove -ENOSYS from dummy implementation of of_init_opp_table()

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

Hi Viresh,

$subject perhaps should be "replace/remove -EINVAL.." instead of "remove
-ENOSYS ..."

On 21/05/14 12:09, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> When any of CONFIG_PM_OPP or CONFIG_OF isn't enabled we have a dummy
> implementation of of_init_opp_table() routine, it returns -EINVAL currently.
> -EINVAL can be returned from other places within the real implementations of
> of_init_opp_table() and so caller wouldn't be able to differentiate between
> those two cases.
>
> Make it return -ENOSYS instead for better handling.
>
[Nit] How about "it's more appropriate to return -ENOSYS as since the function
is not implemented" ?

Otherwise it looks fine to me.
Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>

> Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
>   include/linux/pm_opp.h | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_opp.h b/include/linux/pm_opp.h
> index 0330217..6668150 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pm_opp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pm_opp.h
> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int of_init_opp_table(struct device *dev);
>   #else
>   static inline int of_init_opp_table(struct device *dev)
>   {
> -	return -EINVAL;
> +	return -ENOSYS;
>   }
>   #endif
>
>