From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.25-git] i2c_adapters: return -Errno not -1 Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 09:44:20 -0700 Message-ID: <200805120944.21091.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200805012046.07885.david-b@pacbell.net> <200805110923.44693.david-b@pacbell.net> <20080512160537.13e7739a@hyperion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080512160537.13e7739a-ig7AzVSIIG7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Monday 12 May 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > = > > > would be more appropriate than -EILSEQ, I think. > > = > > How about "-EPROTO" for protocol error, then, if you're so > > strongly opposed to "illegal byte sequence"? =A0The reason I > > avoided EPROTO in that case is that it's so generic; while > > we could use EILSEQ to indicate this specific case. > = > -EPROTO sounds good to me. We're not using it anywhere in the i2c > subsystem so there's no need to worry about it being "too generic". I'd be happier with EILSEQ, matching related use elsewhere in Linux, but it's now been switched to EPROTO. _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c