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

[G, Manjunath Kondaiah]

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?

-M
--
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/