On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:26:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Hans Verkuil hverkuil@xs4all.nl wrote:
On 14/07/17 11:36, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
@@ -201,8 +202,9 @@ static int cx18_g_fmt_sliced_vbi_cap(struct file *file, void *fh, * digitizer/slicer. Note, cx18_av_vbi() wipes the passed in * fmt->fmt.sliced under valid calling conditions */
if (v4l2_subdev_call(cx->sd_av, vbi, g_sliced_fmt, &fmt->fmt.sliced))return -EINVAL;
ret = v4l2_subdev_call(cx->sd_av, vbi, g_sliced_fmt, &fmt->fmt.sliced);if (ret)return ret;Please keep the -EINVAL here. I can't be 100% certain that returning 'ret' wouldn't break something.
I think Dan was recommending the opposite here, if I understood you both correctly: he said we should propagate the error code unless we know it's wrong, while you want to keep the current behavior to avoid introducing changes ;-)
I don't know the subsystem rules at all, so don't listen to me.
regards, dan carpenter