On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 04:07:39PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:53:25 +0000, Ben Dooks wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:07:05AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > The I2C specification explicitly describes both SDA and SCL as
> > > bidirectional lines. An I2C master with a read-only SCL is thus not
> > > compliant. If a slow slave stretches the clock, errors will happen,
> > > so the bus can't be considered as reliable.
> > > + if (bit_adap->getscl == NULL) {
> > > + dev_warn(&adap->dev, "Not I2C compliant: can't read SCL\n");
> >
> > I'll have a think about wording. I might be able to improve it.
> >
> > As a note, I always prefer cannot to can't.
>
> And I thought you were a busy developer ;)
I've my reasons for this, blame my parents.
> There is no trend one way or another, neither in the kernel tree nor
> even in drivers/i2c specifically.
no, just my preference.
> > > + dev_warn(&adap->dev, "Bus may be unreliable\n");
> >
> > if there are any other warnings, should we print just one unreliable warning
> > at the end of the scan?
>
> I'm not sure what "scan" you refer to, and in all honesty I'm not sure
> I get your point at all.
ok, looking at the code it isn't important.
--
Ben
Q: What's a light-year?
A: One-third less calories than a regular year.
--
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
