Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: OWG3aUqDZXmGmp0RhPPtLvjohN+t5qIajUeeRotdhuuQRLS1yALSpXptkf4BdwcViJ8y7r8kaH
 U9wWdlJHCPkg==
IronPort-SDR: rq1xC6B+ZNCfNwvKuTjI3Ukn5oSNFgV8aADsVbnNANwb9n0N8pt6HOBTo7QeKYM1Sj+NXdP4wx
 scvTUSMC6FqQ==
Date:   Mon, 29 Mar 2021 18:25:46 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: Allow drivers to return EOPNOTSUPP from
 config
Message-ID: <YGHxejGI2x4X3EEe@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <cover.1617017060.git.matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
 <d2c8b7f9a3b420c2764f645da531a57db16905f3.1617017060.git.matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
 <CAHp75VdXa2bkJ+ej+HNYstLeK4TF+L5H3wTgm0CgJ9hYQeU+ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1ceb7dc5c2fa376470ab9274020fddf1c2f1584f.camel@perches.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1ceb7dc5c2fa376470ab9274020fddf1c2f1584f.camel@perches.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 08:08:52AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 14:59 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 2:43 PM Matti Vaittinen
> > <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > The checkpacth instructs to switch from ENOSUPP to EOPNOTSUPP.
> > > > WARNING: ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP
> > > 
> > > Make the gpiolib allow drivers to return both so driver developers
> > > can avoid one of the checkpatch complaints.
> > 
> > Internally we are fine to use the ENOTSUPP.
> > Checkpatch false positives there.
> > 
> > I doubt we need this change. Rather checkpatch should rephrase this to
> > point out that this is only applicable to _user-visible_ error path.
> > Cc'ed Joe.
> 
> Adding CC for Jakub Kicinski who added that particular rule/test.
> 
> And the output message report of the rule is merely a suggestion indicating
> a preference.  It's always up to an individual to accept/reject.
> 
> At best, perhaps wordsmithing the checkpatch message might be an OK option.

Thanks, Joe!

Jakub, what do you think?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko