From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B078C4727F for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:50:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05122085B for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:50:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="Gs51p7O1" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732094AbgJAKu3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 06:50:29 -0400 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.142]:33622 "EHLO fllv0016.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731131AbgJAKu0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 06:50:26 -0400 Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 091AoEXG096966; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 05:50:14 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1601549414; bh=zjVe+1hVGG9fRo6kpJTm9iQgf/nkwnz8d97EAW7jcHQ=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Gs51p7O1KF0ErqsOLXksH1++lJMAbEXKWq8FGE6JSfFd7leOjRdITaOGgicIo+gxG njCVWCPyg6suoqIctHNkEgqdc/aONWyvIQmRYl7eae4yW7BtHSyA5QXRFuOdqQGBYt gdEpG2JnLk3QoF7u4x9907aRBGjcAhbLwlUu3as4= Received: from DLEE108.ent.ti.com (dlee108.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.38]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 091AoDCP020945; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 05:50:13 -0500 Received: from DLEE102.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.32) by DLEE108.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 05:50:13 -0500 Received: from lelv0327.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.183) by DLEE102.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 05:50:13 -0500 Received: from [10.250.235.166] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0327.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 091Ao9bt067843; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 05:50:11 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 01/15] mtd: spi-nor: core: use EOPNOTSUPP instead of ENOTSUPP To: Miquel Raynal , Pratyush Yadav CC: , , , , , References: <20200930185732.6201-1-p.yadav@ti.com> <20200930185732.6201-2-p.yadav@ti.com> <5340adf5-1bb2-1eff-3812-6976b3b76faf@microchip.com> <20201001073425.txsfdngrsugsy6uf@ti.com> <20201001095012.5c331bf8@xps13> From: Vignesh Raghavendra Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 16:20:09 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201001095012.5c331bf8@xps13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 10/1/20 1:20 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hello, > > Pratyush Yadav wrote on Thu, 1 Oct 2020 13:04:27 +0530: > >> On 01/10/20 07:19AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: >>> On 9/30/20 9:57 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote: >>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > It seems that your mailer/server introduced that line automatically, > can you do something to avoid it? > >>>> >>>> ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code. Using EOPNOTSUPP is preferred >>>> in its stead. > > I ran into this checkpatch.pl error recently, I count 80+ iterations in > drivers/mtd/ so perhaps having a subsystem wide replacement will be > nice. I'm fine with this patch though as it is addressing all SPI-NOR > cases already. > Yeah, since this is SPI NOR wide I will go ahead and apply. Also, this would avoid confusion for ppl adding new code on whether to address the checkpatch warning or follow the existing convention. Regards Vignesh > Cheers, > Miquèl > [...]