Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-133267-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:38:04 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	"Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>,
	"brgl@bgdev.pl" <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
	"linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"cristian.marussi@arm.com" <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
	"sudeep.holla@arm.com" <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pinconf-generic: check error value EOPNOTSUPP
Message-ID: <ZhAa3NPO19mINYJP@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240401141031.3106216-1-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
 <CACRpkdZAuNXGyg2wwYcQG4oO9w7jPS6vj4Vt0=kqX5fJ+QpNmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zg7dwcFz5eD7Am2u@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <DU0PR04MB941777DA29D70013342721A788032@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <DU0PR04MB941777DA29D70013342721A788032@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 02:13:28AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:02 PM Peng Fan (OSS) <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
> > wrote:

..

> > > >                         ret = pin_config_get_for_pin(pctldev, pin, &config);
> > > >                 /* These are legal errors */
> > > > -               if (ret == -EINVAL || ret == -ENOTSUPP)
> > > > +               if (ret == -EINVAL || ret == -ENOTSUPP || ret ==
> > > > + -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > >
> > > TBH it's a bit odd to call an in-kernel API such as
> > > pin_config_get_for_pin() and get -EOPNOTSUPP back. But it's not like I care
> > a lot, so patch applied.
> > 
> > Hmm... I would like actually to get this being consistent. The documentation
> > explicitly says that in-kernel APIs uses Linux error code and not POSIX one.
> 
> Would you please share me the documentation?

Sure.
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf.h#L24
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c#L2825
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c#L2845

I admit that this is not the best documented, feel free to produce a proper
documentation.

> > This check opens a Pandora box.
> > 
> > FWIW, it just like dozen or so drivers that needs to be fixed, I prefer to have
> > them being moved to ENOTSUPP, rather this patch.
> 
> I see many patches convert to use EOPNOTSUPP by checking git log.

How is that related? You mean for GPIO/pin control drivers?

> And checkpatch.pl reports warning for using ENOTSUPP.

checkpatch has false-positives, this is just one of them.

> BTW: is there any issue if using EOPNOTSUPP here?

Yes. we don't want to be inconsistent. Using both in one subsystem is asking
for troubles. If you want EOPNOTSUPP, please convert *all* users and drop
ENOTSUPP completely (series out of ~100+ patches I believe :-), which probably
will be not welcome).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko