On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 02:41:51PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:58:12PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > +int cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> > + struct cros_ec_command *msg)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = cros_ec_cmd_xfer(ec_dev, msg);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + dev_err(ec_dev->dev, "Command xfer error (err:%d)\n", ret);
> > + else if (msg->result != EC_RES_SUCCESS)
> > + return -EECRESULT - msg->result;
>
> I have been wondering about the error return codes here, and if they should be
> converted to standard Linux error codes. For example, I just hit error -1003
> with a driver I am working on. This translates to EC_RES_INVALID_PARAM, or,
> in Linux terms, -EINVAL. I think it would be better to use standard error
> codes, especially since some of the errors are logged.
How do you propose we do that? Do all of the following become EINVAL?
EC_RES_INVALID_COMMAND
EC_RES_INVALID_PARAM
EC_RES_INVALID_VERSION
EC_RES_INVALID_HEADER
We lose a lot of information that way. And particularly, cros_ec_num_pwms()
won't be able to count as accurately. But I can just go back to not using this
API if that's what you'd like...
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
