On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 09:08:50AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:24:28 +0100, Ben Dooks wrote: > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 06:49:07PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Oh, BTW, nacks should be reported with -ENXIO according to: > > > http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/linux-2.6/jdelvare-i2c/i2c-document-standard-fault-codes.patch > > > It might be worth checking that this new driver complies with these > > > freshly adopted error codes standard. > > > > Hmm, where ECONREFUSED or EPIPE (if NAK in already selected device) > > entertained?
[snip] > As for the error code, it doesn't matter that much I think, as long as > it is consistent. We've settled for ENXIO and I wouldn't change this > now without a very good reason. Sorry, I meant what happens if a NAK is received after the address part of the i2c_msg has been sent, when sending the msg data? Is this a case for an error like EPIPE, ENOLINK or EREMOTEIO? -- Ben ([EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.fluff.org/) 'a smiley only costs 4 bytes' _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
