Re: [PATCH v6 06/19] i2c: octeon: Improve error status checking

[Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com>]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> Please have a look at Documentation/i2c/fault-codes. -EAGAIN is only for
> arbitration loss.
> 
> > +	/* ACK allowed on pre-terminal bytes only */
> > +	case STAT_RXDATA_ACK:
> > +		if (!final_read)
> > +			return 0;
> > +		return -EAGAIN;
> > +
> > +	/* NAK allowed on terminal byte only */
> > +	case STAT_RXDATA_NAK:
> > +		if (final_read)
> > +			return 0;
> > +		return -EAGAIN;
> 
> -EIO? Can this happen? It is the master who sends the NAK, so we are in
> control of that.

If it happens not in the final_read part then it is an error, so -EIO 
would be better suited. Also for the other error codes I will follow your
suggestion.

Should I resend the whole series or will you review the other patches
before?

Thanks,
Jan

> > +
> > +	/* Arbitration lost */
> > +	case STAT_LOST_ARB_38:
> > +	case STAT_LOST_ARB_68:
> > +	case STAT_LOST_ARB_78:
> > +	case STAT_LOST_ARB_B0:
> > +		return -EAGAIN;
> 
> OK.
> 
> > +
> > +	/* Being addressed as slave, should back off & listen */
> > +	case STAT_SLAVE_60:
> > +	case STAT_SLAVE_70:
> > +	case STAT_GENDATA_ACK:
> > +	case STAT_GENDATA_NAK:
> > +		return -EIO;
> 
> -EOPNOTSUPP?
> 
> > +
> > +	/* Core busy as slave */
> > +	case STAT_SLAVE_80:
> > +	case STAT_SLAVE_88:
> > +	case STAT_SLAVE_A0:
> > +	case STAT_SLAVE_A8:
> > +	case STAT_SLAVE_LOST:
> > +	case STAT_SLAVE_NAK:
> > +	case STAT_SLAVE_ACK:
> > +		return -EIO;
> 
> -EOPNOTSUPP?
> 
> > +	case STAT_TXDATA_NAK:
> 
> -EIO?
> 
> > +	case STAT_TXADDR_NAK:
> > +	case STAT_RXADDR_NAK:
> > +	case STAT_AD2W_NAK:
> 
> -ENXIO?
> 
> > +		return -EAGAIN;
> > +	default:
> > +		dev_err(i2c->dev, "unhandled state: %d\n", stat);
> > +		return -EIO;
> 
> OK.
>