Re: [patch 3/3] i2c: add support for i2c bus on Freescale CPM1/CPM2 controllers

[Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:26:30 +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 09:08:50AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> > 
> > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:24:28 +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 06:49:07PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > Oh, BTW, nacks should be reported with -ENXIO according to:
> > > > http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/linux-2.6/jdelvare-i2c/i2c-document-standard-fault-codes.patch
> > > > It might be worth checking that this new driver complies with these
> > > > freshly adopted error codes standard.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, where ECONREFUSED or EPIPE (if NAK in already selected device)
> > > entertained?
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > As for the error code, it doesn't matter that much I think, as long as
> > it is consistent. We've settled for ENXIO and I wouldn't change this
> > now without a very good reason.
> 
> Sorry, I meant what happens if a NAK is received after the address
> part of the i2c_msg has been sent, when sending the msg data? Is this
> a case for an error like EPIPE, ENOLINK or EREMOTEIO?

Our current error codes document suggests EIO. EPIPE and ENOLINK do not
make much sense IMHO. EREMOTEIO would make some sense, but I suspect
that many drivers won't be able to isolate this specific error and thus
will still return EIO. David, what do you think?

-- 
Jean Delvare

_______________________________________________
i2c mailing list
i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c