Re: SYSFS "errors"

[Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1105 bytes --]

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 07:03:10AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > But my gut feeling says to stay concervative and not touch this code -
> > we don't know what uses it and how much we would break by "fixing" it.
> > The current situation is not that big of a deal IMVHO and I'd be willing
> > to accept the small inconcistency versus possibly breaking userspace.
> 
> I remember I saw some discussions about it in the past at bluesmoke ML,
> saying that -ENODEV is the expected behavior when this is not supported.
> 
> Changing from -ENODEV to "N/A" will break anything that would be relying
> on the previous behavior. So, I think that such change will for sure break
> userspace.
> 
> If we're willing to change it, not creating the "sdram_scrub_rate" sysfs 
> node is less likely to affect userspace.

yeah, I agree with this. Guess we shouldn't be creating files which
aren't supported by the underlying HW and having a read() return -ENODEV
is quite weird IMO since that's actually 'breaking' read() interface
although that's up to interpretations.

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]