Re: [PATCH v14 01/15] mtd: spi-nor: core: use EOPNOTSUPP instead of ENOTSUPP

[Miquel Raynal]

Hello,

Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@xxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 1 Oct 2020 13:04:27 +0530:

> On 01/10/20 07:19AM, Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
> > 
> > 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 <p.yadav@xxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  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