On Thursday 03 February 2005 21:12, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > >+ mv64xxx_i2c_fsm(drv_data, status); > > > >It can set drv_data->rc to -ENODEV or -EIO. In both cases ->action goes to > >MV64XXX_I2C_ACTION_SEND_STOP and mv64xxx_i2c_do_action() will writel() > >something. Is it correct to _not_ check ->rc here? > > I think so. It still needs to go into do_action even when rc != 0 (in > which case it'll do a STOP condition). Ok. Thanks for the explanation. Agree, ->rc should be left as is. > This patch is a replacement patch that should address your concerns > except maybe the mv64xxx_i2c_data.rc one. > --- a/include/linux/i2c-id.h > +++ b/include/linux/i2c-id.h > + /* 0x170000 - USB */ > + /* 0x180000 - Virtual buses */ > +#define I2C_ALGO_MV64XXX 0x190000 /* Marvell mv64xxx i2c ctlr */ While I searched for typos and you're fixing them, au1550 owned 0x170000. 2.6.11-rc3 says: #define I2C_ALGO_AU1550 0x170000 /* Au1550 PSC algorithm */ So, I'd remove first two comments. Oh, and the last note: current sparse and gcc 4 don't produce any warnings. Alexey
