Re: [PATCH 4/5] gpiolib: handle deferral probe error

[Grant Likely]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:44:32AM +0530, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 04:09:38PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:33:09 +0500
> > > "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> The gpio library should return -EPROBE_DEFER in gpio_request
> > >> if gpio driver is not ready.
> > >
> > > Why not use the perfectly good existing error codes we have for this ?
> > >
> > > We have EAGAIN and EUNATCH both of which look sensible.
> > 
> > I want a distinct error code for probe deferral so that a) it doesn't
> > overlap with something a driver is already doing, and b) so that all
> > the users can be found again at a later date.
> > 
> > That said, I'm not in agreement with this patch.  It is fine for gpio
> > lib to have a code that means the pin doesn't exist (yet), but the
> > device driver needs to be the one to decide whether or not it is
> > appropriate to use probe deferral.
> 
> During gpio_request, driver gpio_request is not available. How can we expect
> driver to request deferred probe in this case?

If gpio_request fails, the driver can then explicitly make the
decision to return -EPROBE_DEFER.  It isn't forced to pass on the
error code from gpio_request().

g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/