On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:16:16 +0000, Ben Dooks wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:46:00AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:11:17 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > > On Sunday 14 December 2008, Ben Dooks wrote: > > > > Has anyone reveiwed this patch? Are there any comments, or can this > > > > be commited at somepoint (even if it is during the next merge window)? > > > > > > I was thinking that -EINVAL is almost the least informative > > > diagnostic code possible, since so many places return it > > > that it's usually hard to find out *which* invalid parameter > > > triggered ... > > > > > > Is there a less-overloaded code you could return? > > > > -EINVAL sounds right to me, all that's really missing is dev_dbg() > > messages in the drivers to log what the exact problem was. > > It might be more acceptable to be dev_err(), that way it will get > printed no matter what debug options have been selected. If so, a > seperate patch is probably in order to make the change. As far as I can see, such errors would be caused by development-time mistakes, so dev_dbg() seems appropriate. dev_err() would make the binaries larger for all end-users. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
