devel@lists.zephyrproject.org

[RFC] Add DEV_NOT_IMPLEMENTED error code

Hi all, It seems we don't have a consensus about what error code the device driver should return in case a given driver API is not implemented. If we take a look at suspend() and resume() functions,

By Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...> · #2227 ·

Re: [RFC] Add DEV_NOT_IMPLEMENTED error code

See [Peter]

By Mitsis, Peter <Peter.Mitsis@...> · #2228 ·

Re: [RFC] Add DEV_NOT_IMPLEMENTED error code

By Kalowsky, Daniel <daniel.kalowsky@...> · #2229 ·

Re: [RFC] Add DEV_NOT_IMPLEMENTED error code

We definitely need to have one answer all drivers agree on. I had an RFC where the suspend/resume functions move to the device level and out of the device type specific APIs. This allows the

By Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@...> · #2230 ·

Re: [RFC] Add DEV_NOT_IMPLEMENTED error code

Hi Peter, Quoting Mitsis, Peter (2016-02-12 12:39:13) I guess the main reason is that the device driver APIs follows the error code format from include/device.h not the errno.h. Sure we can change

By Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...> · #2231 ·

Re: [RFC] Add DEV_NOT_IMPLEMENTED error code

Hi Daniel, Quoting Kalowsky, Daniel (2016-02-12 12:53:49) Thanks for the background explanation. Yes, DEV_NO_SUPPORT might cover the concept however it brings another connotation which is "the

By Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...> · #2232 ·

[RFC] Simplifying disable of Kconfig Debugging options

Hello, please check this proposal and provide feedback if possible. Background: Currently several debugging options exists on Kconfig menu but they are not on a single debug submenu, e.g.: -

By Saucedo Tejada, Genaro <genaro.saucedo.tejada@...> · #2233 ·

RFC: return type of functions passed to DEVICE_INIT()

Folks, For some reason, the signature of functions passed to the DEVICE_INIT() <init_fn> parameter has a return type of 'int', but the return value is never checked within

By Benjamin Walsh <benjamin.walsh@...> · #2234 ·

Re: RFC: return type of functions passed to DEVICE_INIT()

See [Peter]

By Mitsis, Peter <Peter.Mitsis@...> · #2235 ·

Re: RFC: return type of functions passed to DEVICE_INIT()

Drivers' initialization routines can use __ASSERT() if they want to catch an error in a debug build.

By Benjamin Walsh <benjamin.walsh@...> · #2236 ·

Re: [RFC] Add DEV_NOT_IMPLEMENTED error code

Hi Dirk, Quoting Dirk Brandewie (2016-02-12 13:32:31) Yes, sure. If we can use this 'null' implementation in drivers that don't properly implement the suspend/resume callbacks (yet), this will fix

By Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...> · #2237 ·

UART on Minnowboard

Hi, I have a problem with minnowboard and it's uart (I use btshell sample for testing and trying to communicate with Bluetooth module using H5 protocol). The problem is, that there is no

By Szymon Janc <ext.szymon.janc@...> · #2238 ·

RFC: make _fiber_start() return a handle on the fiber

Folks, When we start a fiber via the _fiber_start() API family, we don't get back a handle on the created fiber. The fiber identifier is actually the start of the fiber's stack. This hasn't been a

By Benjamin Walsh <benjamin.walsh@...> · #2239 ·

Re: [RFC] Simplifying disable of Kconfig Debugging options

By Kalowsky, Daniel <daniel.kalowsky@...> · #2240 ·

Re: [RFC] Add DEV_NOT_IMPLEMENTED error code

By Kalowsky, Daniel <daniel.kalowsky@...> · #2241 ·

Re: [RFC] Simplifying disable of Kconfig Debugging options

Your proposal seems the simplest to me, the only advantage I see on the more complex one is flexibility, presets could provide settings for multiple scenarios rather than on|off. I would add your

By Saucedo Tejada, Genaro <genaro.saucedo.tejada@...> · #2242 ·

Re: RFC: return type of functions passed to DEVICE_INIT()

I have not received any other feedback w.r.t. this: silence implies consent ? :)

By Benjamin Walsh <benjamin.walsh@...> · #2243 ·

Re: RFC: return type of functions passed to DEVICE_INIT()

Fine by me, on both accounts.

By Iván Briano <ivan.briano at intel.com...> · #2244 ·

Re: [RFC] Add DEV_NOT_IMPLEMENTED error code

Hi Daniel, Quoting Kalowsky, Daniel (2016-02-17 05:09:07) I think ENOSYS would perfectly match what we want here since it means "Function not implemented" (as Peter pointed in the other

By Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...> · #2245 ·

Re: [RFC] Add DEV_NOT_IMPLEMENTED error code

Hi, Andre Guedes <andre.guedes(a)intel.com> wrote: Just so we avoid mixing two different topics, it looks like this deserves a separate RFC. The original problem I raised on that code review a few

By Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...> · #2246 ·

Messages