On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 01:18:09PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > Is there another reason why pch_i2c_getack returned EPROTO?
> > May be ENXIO was introduced later?
>
> Imperfect review :)
>
> > I think we can just replace the -EIO with -ENXIO or do you want to pick up the return
> > vale of pch_i2c_getack and return that ?
>
> The latter. As a rule of thumb, it is usually more sustainable to pass
> through error codes. Overloading them should only be done when really
> necessary IMO.
>
Ok, if that will be ok in pch_i2c_wait_for_check_xfer i will resend
the patch.
ret = pch_i2c_getack(adap);
if (ret)
pch_dbg(adap, "Receive NACK for slave address setting\n");
return (int)ret;
Regards
Andy
--
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
