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;
Date:   Thu, 27 May 2021 23:00:21 +0200
From:   Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>
To:     Om Prakash Singh <omp@nvidia.com>
Cc:     vidyas@nvidia.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
        thierry.reding@gmail.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com,
        linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kthota@nvidia.com,
        mmaddireddy@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH V1 4/5] PCI: tegra: Don't allow suspend when Tegra
 PCIe is in EP mode
Message-ID: <20210527210021.GA32109@rocinante.localdomain>
References: <20210527115246.20509-1-omp@nvidia.com>
 <20210527115246.20509-5-omp@nvidia.com>
 <20210527120531.GB213718@rocinante.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210527120531.GB213718@rocinante.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

> > +	if (pcie->mode == DW_PCIE_EP_TYPE) {
> > +		dev_err(dev, "Tegra PCIe is in EP mode, suspend not allowed");
> > +		return -EPERM;
> > +	}
> 
> Would the -EINVAL be more appropriate here?  It seem more appropriate
> when something is an invalid operation, rather than access to the
> resource being denied (or something along these lines), what do you
> think?

After looking at this again, perhaps -ENOTSUPP would be a better fit,
and then the message could say that the suspend is not supported.

	Krzysztof