On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:14:58 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi David, > > On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:16:07 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > More updates to the I2C stack's fault reporting: make the core stop > > returning "-1" (usually "-EPERM") for all faults. Instead, pass lower > > level fault code up the stack, or return some appropriate errno. > > > > This patch happens to touch almost exclusively SMBus calls. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > This is an updated version of: > > http://marc.info/?l=i2c&m=120984528415259&w=2 > > with some return codes updated to address feedback from the similar > > patch for the x86 I2C/SMBus adapters. > > > > drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 78 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- > > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > > > Looks very good, with just one suggested change: > > > --- g26.orig/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c 2008-05-11 13:07:56.000000000 -0700 > > +++ g26/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c 2008-05-11 15:09:00.000000000 -0700 > > (...) > > @@ -1568,7 +1576,7 @@ static s32 i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(struc > > default: > > dev_err(&adapter->dev, "smbus_access called with invalid size > > (%d)\n", > > size); > > - return -1; > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > } > > I'd rather use -EINVAL here. (...)
Hmh, scratch this. Thinking about it some more (night helps) -EOPNOTSUPP is consistent with what we did for the bus drivers after all, and it also anticipates addition of new transaction types to <linux/i2c.h> or removal of support for some transaction types from i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated() (which might as well happen, if you look carefully you'll see that there are no in-kernel users of transaction types I2C_SMBUS_PROC_CALL and I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_PROC_CALL so we might decide to remove thir support from i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated someday.) > (..) > BTW, feel free to adjust the debugging message above, as you did in > some bus drivers already, to clearly say that we're speaking about a > transaction type and not a "size". > > All the rest looks OK to me from a functional point of view. As far as > style is concerned, please keep the alignment on opening parenthesis > when the original code did that. i2c-core uses this style consistently > and I like it. I'll do all this myself now, no need to resend. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
