Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] serdev: Add method to assert break signal over tty UART port

[Simon Horman]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 04:19:59AM +0000, Neeraj sanjay kale wrote:
> Hi Simon
> 
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 11:49:19PM +0530, Neeraj Sanjay Kale wrote:
> > > > > Adds serdev_device_break_ctl() and an implementation for ttyport.
> > > > > This function simply calls the break_ctl in tty layer, which can
> > > > > assert a break signal over UART-TX line, if the tty and the
> > > > > underlying platform and UART peripheral supports this operation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Neeraj Sanjay Kale <neeraj.sanjaykale@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > v3: Add details to the commit message. (Greg KH)
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/serdev.h b/include/linux/serdev.h index
> > > > > 66f624fc618c..c065ef1c82f1 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/serdev.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/serdev.h
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -255,6 +257,10 @@ static inline int
> > > > > serdev_device_set_tiocm(struct serdev_device *serdev, int set,  {
> > > > >       return -ENOTSUPP;
> > > > >  }
> > > > > +static inline int serdev_device_break_ctl(struct serdev_device
> > > > > +*serdev, int break_state) {
> > > > > +     return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > >
> > > > Is the use of -EOPNOTSUPP intentional here?
> > > > I see -ENOTSUPP is used elsewhere in this file.
> > > I was suggested to use - EOPNOTSUPP instead of - ENOTSUPP by the check
> > patch scripts and by Leon Romanovsky.
> > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatc
> > >
> > hwork.kernel.org%2Fproject%2Fbluetooth%2Fpatch%2F20230130180504.202
> > 944
> > > 0-2-
> > neeraj.sanjaykale%40nxp.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cneeraj.sanjaykale%40
> > >
> > nxp.com%7Cf2ae2c9ad3c243df2c1a08db232dc0f1%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92
> > cd99c5
> > >
> > c301635%7C0%7C0%7C638142451647332825%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3
> > d8eyJWIjoiM
> > >
> > C4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000
> > %7C%7C
> > > %7C&sdata=6cF0gipe4kkwYI6txo0vs8vnmF8azCO6gxQ%2F6Tdyd%2Fw%3D
> > &reserved=
> > > 0
> > >
> > > ENOTSUPP is not a standard error code and should be avoided in new
> > patches.
> > > See:
> > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore
> > > .kernel.org%2Fnetdev%2F20200510182252.GA411829%40lunn.ch%2F&data
> > =05%7C
> > >
> > 01%7Cneeraj.sanjaykale%40nxp.com%7Cf2ae2c9ad3c243df2c1a08db232dc0f
> > 1%7C
> > >
> > 686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C638142451647332825%
> > 7CUnknow
> > >
> > n%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha
> > WwiLC
> > >
> > JXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wFgYY6VnZ8BBn6Wme8%2BYj
> > aJRy98qyPnUy
> > > XC8iCFCv5k%3D&reserved=0
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > I agree that EOPNOTSUPP is preferable.
> > But my question is if we chose to use it in this case, even if it is inconsistent
> > with similar code in the same file/API.
> > If so, then I have no objections.
> 
> No, it was just to satisfy the check patch error and Leon's comment. The driver is happy to check if the serdev returned success or not, and simply print the error code during driver debug.
> Do you think this should be reverted to ENOTSUPP to maintain consistency?

My _opinion_, is that first prize would be converting existing instances
of ENOTSUPP in this file to EOPNOTSUPP. And then use EOPNOTSUPP going
forward. And that second prize would be for your patch to use ENOTSUPP.
Because I think there is a value consistency.

But I do see why you have done things the way you have.
And I don't necessarily think it is wrong.