Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181110181101.24557-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <CGME20181110181155epcas2p1ac9bffb2dc7dd6337db5c37f8a87bd5e@epcas2p1.samsung.com>
 <20181110181101.24557-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <5BE8C821.5080002@samsung.com> <5BEB63C3.1020504@samsung.com>
In-Reply-To: <5BEB63C3.1020504@samsung.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:35:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vfe586+tr5mUdSHv4ehmpi0KwS_m+UC0tfFHrdXwKhkig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] extcon: Return -EPROBE_DEFER when extcon device is
 not found
To:     Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>,
        USB <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        "Krogerus, Heikki" <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
        rogerq@ti.com, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>,
        Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:53 AM Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com> wrote:

> I was thinking about again to change from NULL to EPROBE_DEFER.
>
> extcon_get_extcon_dev() function was almost called in the probe function.
> But, this function might be called on other position instead of probe.

*Might be* sounds like a theoretical thing, care to share what is in you mi=
nd?
Current users and more important the new coming one are *all* doing the sam=
e.

> ENODEV is more correct error instead of EPROBE_DEFER.

So, you are proposing to continue duplicating conversion from ENODEV
to EPROBE_DEFER in *each* caller?

> Sorry. I'll withdraw my opinion related acked-by tag until we are clarify=
ing it.

I honestly don't know what to clarify here.

When we would have a real case we can change API correspondingly.
For now, the score is 5:0 with use cases in practice.

> On 2018=EB=85=84 11=EC=9B=94 12=EC=9D=BC 09:24, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> > On 2018=EB=85=84 11=EC=9B=94 11=EC=9D=BC 03:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> All current users of extcon_get_extcon_dev() API considers
> >> an extcon device a mandatory to appear. Thus, they all convert
> >> NULL pointer to -EPROBE_DEFER error code.
> >>
> >> There is one more caller anticipated with the same requirements.
> >>
> >> To decrease a code duplication and a burden to the callers,
> >> return -EPROBE_DEFER directly from extcon_get_extcon_dev().

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko