On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 06:08:38PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 05:53:29PM +0100, Andreas Werner wrote:
> > 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;
>
> Hmm, the cast looks ugly. Looking at the driver more closely, my
> preferred solution would be to elimiate the getack function and just do
> that directly in wait_for_check_xfer:
>
> if (ioread32(adap->pch_base_address + PCH_I2CSR) & PCH_GETACK) {
> pch_dbg ...
> return -ENXIO;
> }
>
> Something like that...
>
Sometimes its really usfull to look closely :-)
I agree you, because the function is just called one time, so
we can really delete this function.
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
