From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [RFC] i2c_check_functionality and error code Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:56:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20160221225606.GA1386@katana> References: <56CA1F0D.2060707@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56CA1F0D.2060707-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-iio-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: Matt Ranostay , "linux-iio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Linux I2C List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline > Hohum. Wolfram what do you think? I'd go for "EOPNOTSUPP" since it is most descriptive. I wouldn't say we really need to fix it up in the kernel tree. However, I neither would vote against it. --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWykCGAAoJEBQN5MwUoCm2QSAQAKr8kPm7y/uMbwHJVCWKpinl VpQbA8teaquwYhR3am2EdiIiCHKNztnkovuW27x6uFyO7q2URHJ92WQrwAWZGxBT +Xa9XK+3dZXGBN9CVoxn0WKUOZvx6dZ00pQ1Hga18IMj7VSnvDaEHE35xu5A33iV QAXIiLPDkypgmZc3+xtJ4x7dOxyUe08/jvjtbFcsEK9AneXIjLaiTKC7WFeIvmmp 7aN6ZneiHX5ZVFXwVYwP/d9P3aT7rBTw7pMmr4pxEKBWEVpYsHAvOlLbfgaMBj1c ELgpJriNoq4IRNLNKKcoHzVZ0x94jF1Y2+us2hBraNPQHzwBvS3WDv+wpBzwJgjV kmwWDgfD8S3Og+IFZZzbfX6rfS7WVNN0+mt0rD4YDsoOHGPrmJcdPV/MR9TsUFWq RDpxp8PwYfycZ/29lV4IycLNKGkqJND6JkVs5GpxPeh0J9daOqq2i8v0QnobKRaM 0qoBjVfOdwSiZXJ2LPKtGYOJSt3CmnDEQovGt/Xwx/QgHEKui+t50MmbYIzOD7fY BiZYzlxyj5owcmilLvghdfG2pVj/nzvTRPN9JSttHr5NhdjH1EM1kJEd+sQGRRzG R0Novgd1Dx4eUDl5bFig73lFxFdsbIkslRPMlcOJReOtiSxs/CVPyJgaDZlSUMhR Kum8ykG7c3bdA3C6gwEI =dLJR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm--