From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Werner Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] I2C: busses: i2c-eg20t Do not print error message in syslog if no ACK received Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:16:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20131117171623.GA3947@thinkpad.fritz.box> References: <1384678731-10399-1-git-send-email-wernerandy@gmx.de> <20131117110846.GA3093@katana> <20131117123902.GA3834@awedesk.fritz.box> <20131117121809.GC3093@katana> <20131117165329.GA1562@thinkpad.fritz.box> <20131117170838.GA8577@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131117170838.GA8577@katana> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: khali@linux-fr.org, jacmet@sunsite.dk, hskinnemoen@gmail.com, dianders@chromium.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 06:08:38PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 05:53:29PM +0100, Andreas Werner wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 01:18:09PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > > Is there another reason why pch_i2c_getack returned EPROTO? > > > > May be ENXIO was introduced later? > > > > > > Imperfect review :) > > > > > > > I think we can just replace the -EIO with -ENXIO or do you want to pick up the return > > > > vale of pch_i2c_getack and return that ? > > > > > > The latter. As a rule of thumb, it is usually more sustainable to pass > > > through error codes. Overloading them should only be done when really > > > necessary IMO. > > > > > Ok, if that will be ok in pch_i2c_wait_for_check_xfer i will resend > > the patch. > > > > ret = pch_i2c_getack(adap); > > > > if (ret) > > pch_dbg(adap, "Receive NACK for slave address setting\n"); > > > > return (int)ret; > > Hmm, the cast looks ugly. Looking at the driver more closely, my > preferred solution would be to elimiate the getack function and just do > that directly in wait_for_check_xfer: > > if (ioread32(adap->pch_base_address + PCH_I2CSR) & PCH_GETACK) { > pch_dbg ... > return -ENXIO; > } > > Something like that... > Sometimes its really usfull to look closely :-) I agree you, because the function is just called one time, so we can really delete this function. regards Andy