On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Please have a look at Documentation/i2c/fault-codes. -EAGAIN is only for > arbitration loss. > > > + /* ACK allowed on pre-terminal bytes only */ > > + case STAT_RXDATA_ACK: > > + if (!final_read) > > + return 0; > > + return -EAGAIN; > > + > > + /* NAK allowed on terminal byte only */ > > + case STAT_RXDATA_NAK: > > + if (final_read) > > + return 0; > > + return -EAGAIN; > > -EIO? Can this happen? It is the master who sends the NAK, so we are in > control of that.
If it happens not in the final_read part then it is an error, so -EIO would be better suited. Also for the other error codes I will follow your suggestion. Should I resend the whole series or will you review the other patches before? Thanks, Jan > > + > > + /* Arbitration lost */ > > + case STAT_LOST_ARB_38: > > + case STAT_LOST_ARB_68: > > + case STAT_LOST_ARB_78: > > + case STAT_LOST_ARB_B0: > > + return -EAGAIN; > > OK. > > > + > > + /* Being addressed as slave, should back off & listen */ > > + case STAT_SLAVE_60: > > + case STAT_SLAVE_70: > > + case STAT_GENDATA_ACK: > > + case STAT_GENDATA_NAK: > > + return -EIO; > > -EOPNOTSUPP? > > > + > > + /* Core busy as slave */ > > + case STAT_SLAVE_80: > > + case STAT_SLAVE_88: > > + case STAT_SLAVE_A0: > > + case STAT_SLAVE_A8: > > + case STAT_SLAVE_LOST: > > + case STAT_SLAVE_NAK: > > + case STAT_SLAVE_ACK: > > + return -EIO; > > -EOPNOTSUPP? > > > + case STAT_TXDATA_NAK: > > -EIO? > > > + case STAT_TXADDR_NAK: > > + case STAT_RXADDR_NAK: > > + case STAT_AD2W_NAK: > > -ENXIO? > > > + return -EAGAIN; > > + default: > > + dev_err(i2c->dev, "unhandled state: %d\n", stat); > > + return -EIO; > > OK. >
