On Sun 2010-04-18 16:05:48, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > I am sure this is safe because we have retries. The eeprom driver first tries > > > to write data without a delay, because EEPROMs often have buffers. Once the > > > buffers are full, the chip will not answer to the next write request which will > > > result in a timeout for this write request. This is expected, so it will be > > > retried after some delay. Something like -EBUSY. Only if another "outer" > > > timeout passed after some retries, then we have a problem and this should be > > > user visible. But the timeout for the write request is nothing exceptional and > > > the user doesn't need to be informed about it, especially not in this detail. > > > This is what the patch is addressing. > > > > And what if it's not an EEPROM that you're talking to? > > That's up to the corresponding driver. The driver is still notified via the > return value how many i2c-messages could be transmitted. If this is not equal > to what the driver intended, then it can decide to retry or notify the user. > And that is the apropriate level. Doing all this printout at the bus-driver > level is only interesting for developers. Users are frightened by the "timeout" > in their logs although everything might be as expected. A bus driver can't > know. I guess expected conditions should not trigger log spam...? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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
