On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 11:30 -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:51:39 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 07:15:52AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > I am not familiar with the pmbus layer (is it documented anywhere?), is > > > it possible for these errors to happen at all? I am a little surprised > > > that you return errors here and not in adm1275_write_word_data below. > > > But maybe it's OK. > > > > > > If you really have to return these errors, then why do you return > > > -EINVAL when other unsupported features get -ENODATA? > > > > Guess I'll need to document the logic here. > > > > EINVAL: > > The calling code does not try to access the real register and returns the error > > to the caller. Not sure about EINVAL here; maybe I should return EIO. > > ENODATA: > > There is no chip specific register to return this data, but there may be > > a standard register. The calling code tries to access the standard register. > > Yes, better documentation would help me (and maybe others) offer better > reviews of patches touching pmbus drivers. Even with your explanation > above, I'm still unsure if your patch is doing the right thing or not, > because I don't know who will be calling the function, when and with > what values. Well I could read the code, obviously, but... a short > document explaining the calling conditions and conventions would > certainly be good to have. > Agreed. For now, I added more details to the API include file. I'll start writing a separate document describing the driver and its functionality in detail. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
