From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Dooks Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix PCA waitforcompletion() return value Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:08:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20100928230845.GN21564@trinity.fluff.org> References: <4C99CA70.2070109@visionsystems.de> <20100922093123.GE2693@pengutronix.de> <20100922120848.6a43c5c2@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100922120848.6a43c5c2-R0o5gVi9kd7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: Wolfram Sang , Yegor Yefremov , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:08:48PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:31:23 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:20:48AM +0200, Yegor Yefremov wrote: > > > ret is still -1, if during the polling read_byte() returns at once > > > with I2C_PCA_CON_SI set. So ret > 0 would lead *_waitforcompletion() > > > to return 0, in spite of the proper behavior. > > > > > > The routine was rewritten, so that ret has always a proper value, > > > before returning. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yegor Yefremov > > > Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang > > > > Great! Jean, I think this is .36-relevant. Do you plan another > > pull-request (hmm, there is still my clientdata-patch ;))? Should > > probably go to stable, too. > > Yes, I have a few i2c patches scheduled for 2.6.36 and plan to send > Linus a pull request soon. I'm a little busy this week at work, and also > due to a complete workstastion update so I must setup a number of > things again and this temporarily hinders my efficiency. Want me to push it, i've a few fixes too. -- Ben Q: What's a light-year? A: One-third less calories than a regular year.