On July 15, 2014 9:56:17 AM GMT+01:00, Antonio Borneo <borneo.antonio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>> On 14/07/14 18:32, Philippe Reynes wrote:
>
>Hi Jonathan,
>
>regarding your comment below
>
><snip>
>>> +static int max5821_get_value(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>>> + int *val, int channel)
>>> +{
>>> + struct max5821_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>>> + struct i2c_client *client = data->client;
>>> + u8 outbuf[1];
>>> + u8 inbuf[2];
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + switch (channel) {
>>> + case 0:
>>> + outbuf[0] = MAX5821_READ_DAC_A_COMMAND;
>>> + break;
>>> + case 1:
>>> + outbuf[0] = MAX5821_READ_DAC_B_COMMAND;
>>> + break;
>>> + default:
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + ret = i2c_master_send(client, outbuf, 1);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + return ret;
>>> + else if (ret != 1)
>>> + return -EIO;
>>> +
>>> + ret = i2c_master_recv(client, inbuf, 2);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + return ret;
>>> + else if (ret != 2)
>>> + return -EIO;
>>
>> It somehow always feels like this error handling should be in the
>> i2c core. Just how often does it make sense to receive too little
>> from and i2c transaction? Anyhow, such is life ;)
>
>You wrote:
>
>> You could set this up to use i2c_transfer instead of separating it
>like
>> this.
>
>Accordingly to:
>- Documentation/i2c/i2c-protocol
>- Documentation/i2c/writing-clients
>a sequence of i2c_master_send() and i2c_master_recv() is not fully
>equivalent to a single i2c_transfer(); in latter case the transactions
>would be combined and the stop bit in between would be removed.
>
>I checked the datasheet of max5821 and it reports that
>"Each transmit sequence is framed by a START (S) or REPEATED START
>(Sr) condition and a STOP (P) condition."
>So combined transaction should work with this device.
>
>But we have few I2C controllers that cannot send combined transactions
>and would return error.
>E.g. in drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-powermac.c
>i2c_powermac_master_xfer() returns -EOPNOTSUPP when num!=1.
>
>What is the proper way to address this:
>- use combine transactions, since supported by majority of (but not
>all) controllers?
>or
>- keep individual transactions, if not strictly required by the
>protocol of the I2C device?
I would go with working on the vast majority unless we have a user actually using such
an i2c controller.
>
>Thanks,
>Antonio
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
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
