Hi again... * Mark M. Hoffman <mhoffman at lightlink.com> [2004-11-07 21:47:51 -0500]: > Whatever we agree are legitimate reasons to cancel detection, I would like > to add specific documentation for them. I think a case can be made that > there's *no* legitimate reason for a driver to halt detection that way... > but I'm sure I'll hear otherwise. As an interface, this interpretation > of a return value (I failed so badly that you're not allowed to call me > again) isn't my favorite. After working on a patch for a bit... now I hate it. Why does i2c_detect() need to work that way? Back to where I started: anyone mind if I rewrite i2c_detect()? A grep said that drivers/i2c/chips/*.c are the only callers. Regards, -- Mark M. Hoffman mhoffman at lightlink.com
