On 03/18, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 19:48:33 -0300 > Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The original code does not correctly handle the error related to I2C > > read and write. This patch fixes the error handling related to all > > read/write functions for I2C. This patch is an adaptation of the John > > Syne patches. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: John Syne <john3909@xxxxxxxxx> > Hi Rodrigo, > > I'm not sure what the chain of authorship was here. If this is fundamentally > John's original patch he should still be the author and his sign off should be > first. You then sign off afterwards to indicate that you 'handled' the patch > and believe the work to be John's (you are trusting his sign off). This > is 'fun' legal stuff - read the docs on developers certificate of origin. > > If the patch has changed 'enough' (where that is a fuzzy definition) > then you should as you have here take the authorship, but John's sign off is > no longer true (it's a different patch). If John has reviewed the code > it is fine to have a reviewed-by or acked-by from John there to reflect > that. > > Anyhow, please clarify the situation as I shouldn't take a patch where > I'm applying my sign-off without knowing the origins etc. Hi Jonathan, Just for clarification, this is fundamentally John's original patch with some changes on the way that write_reg operation returns the error. I should ask for someone else, how to correctly handle this situation since I did not have experience with this situation. Actually, when I worked on this patch, I was confused about using different authorship from the email. I got confused because of the following statement: "Make sure that the email you specify here is the same email you used to set up sending mail. The Linux kernel developers will not accept a patch where the "From" email differs from the "Signed-off-by" line, which is what will happen if these two emails do not match." [1] Anyway, I think this is not a newbie issue, and I should asked first. Thanks for the great explanation, I will not make this kind of mistake again. Thanks [1] - https://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch > > --- > > drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ > > drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854.c | 10 +++++----- > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c > > index 317e4f0d8176..4437f1e33261 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, > > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 3); > > mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock); > > > > - return ret; > > + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; > > } > > > > static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_16(struct device *dev, > > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_16(struct device *dev, > > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 4); > > mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock); > > > > - return ret; > > + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; > > } > > > > static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_24(struct device *dev, > > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_24(struct device *dev, > > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 5); > > mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock); > > > > - return ret; > > + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; > > } > > > > static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_32(struct device *dev, > > @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg_32(struct device *dev, > > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 6); > > mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock); > > > > - return ret; > > + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; > > } > So for write cases you are flattening to 0 for good and < 0 for bad. > good. > > > > static int ade7854_i2c_read_reg_8(struct device *dev, > > @@ -110,11 +110,11 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_read_reg_8(struct device *dev, > > st->tx[1] = reg_address & 0xFF; > > > > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 2); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > > > > ret = i2c_master_recv(st->i2c, st->rx, 1); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > > > > *val = st->rx[0]; > But in read cases you are returning the number of bytes read... > Given these functions can know the 'right' answer to that why not check > it here and do the same as for writes in return 0 for good and < 0 for > bad? > > @@ -136,11 +136,11 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_read_reg_16(struct device *dev, > > st->tx[1] = reg_address & 0xFF; > > > > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 2); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > > > > ret = i2c_master_recv(st->i2c, st->rx, 2); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > > > > *val = (st->rx[0] << 8) | st->rx[1]; > > @@ -162,11 +162,11 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_read_reg_24(struct device *dev, > > st->tx[1] = reg_address & 0xFF; > > > > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 2); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > > > > ret = i2c_master_recv(st->i2c, st->rx, 3); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > > > > *val = (st->rx[0] << 16) | (st->rx[1] << 8) | st->rx[2]; > > @@ -188,11 +188,11 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_read_reg_32(struct device *dev, > > st->tx[1] = reg_address & 0xFF; > > > > ret = i2c_master_send(st->i2c, st->tx, 2); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > > > > ret = i2c_master_recv(st->i2c, st->rx, 3); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > > > > *val = (st->rx[0] << 24) | (st->rx[1] << 16) | > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854.c > > index 90d07cdca4b8..0193ae3aae29 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854.c > > @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7854_read_8bit(struct device *dev, > > struct iio_dev_attr *this_attr = to_iio_dev_attr(attr); > > > > ret = st->read_reg_8(dev, this_attr->address, &val); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > If you did as discussed above with the reads then this change would not > be needed and all the changes would be confined to the i2c code. > > Thanks, > > Jonathan > > > > return ret; > > > > return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", val); > > @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7854_read_16bit(struct device *dev, > > struct iio_dev_attr *this_attr = to_iio_dev_attr(attr); > > > > ret = st->read_reg_16(dev, this_attr->address, &val); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > > > return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", val); > > @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7854_read_24bit(struct device *dev, > > struct iio_dev_attr *this_attr = to_iio_dev_attr(attr); > > > > ret = st->read_reg_24(dev, this_attr->address, &val); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > > > return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", val); > > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7854_read_32bit(struct device *dev, > > struct ade7854_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev); > > > > ret = st->read_reg_32(dev, this_attr->address, &val); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > > > return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", val); > > @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ static int ade7854_set_irq(struct device *dev, bool enable) > > u32 irqen; > > > > ret = st->read_reg_32(dev, ADE7854_MASK0, &irqen); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > > > if (enable) > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
