On Monday 12 May 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > would be more appropriate than -EILSEQ, I think. > > > > How about "-EPROTO" for protocol error, then, if you're so > > strongly opposed to "illegal byte sequence"? The reason I > > avoided EPROTO in that case is that it's so generic; while > > we could use EILSEQ to indicate this specific case. > > -EPROTO sounds good to me. We're not using it anywhere in the i2c > subsystem so there's no need to worry about it being "too generic".
I'd be happier with EILSEQ, matching related use elsewhere in Linux, but it's now been switched to EPROTO. _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
