* Re: [RFC] i2c_check_functionality and error code [not found] ` <CAKzfze-B4dx9aghERaRDu7xz0i6pMJcAUGMQX7OWJpWh7i=bxw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2016-02-21 20:33 ` Jonathan Cameron [not found] ` <56CA1F0D.2060707-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Cameron @ 2016-02-21 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Ranostay, linux-iio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Wolfram Sang, Linux I2C On 14/02/16 23:09, Matt Ranostay wrote: > Jonathan et all, > > Has anyone noticed that there is no clear consensus on which error > code to return when a i2c_check_functionality() check fails within the > probe function. I've seen so far ENODEV, ENOTSUPP, EOPNOTSUPP, EIO, > and ENOSYS in drivers/iio > > Shouldn't these be made a standard value like -ENOTSUPP? Would make sense - but is this the right choice. Thought I'd grep HWMON as a possible source of a consensus on this and got no clear answer. The most common in there looks to be -ENODEV though (From the first few pages of results anyway ;) Hohum. Wolfram what do you think? Worth cleaning this up? Perhaps even kernel wise would lead to some consistency. I've never been that sharp on this in IIO so I can't really talk ;) Jonathan > > Thanks, > > Matt > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <56CA1F0D.2060707-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] i2c_check_functionality and error code [not found] ` <56CA1F0D.2060707-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> @ 2016-02-21 22:56 ` Wolfram Sang 2016-02-24 20:42 ` Jonathan Cameron 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Wolfram Sang @ 2016-02-21 22:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: Matt Ranostay, linux-iio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Linux I2C [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 197 bytes --] > 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. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] i2c_check_functionality and error code 2016-02-21 22:56 ` Wolfram Sang @ 2016-02-24 20:42 ` Jonathan Cameron 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Cameron @ 2016-02-24 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Matt Ranostay, linux-iio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Linux I2C On 21/02/16 22:56, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> 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. > I'm certainly keen on cleaning this up in IIO at the least. A bit of consistency is always nice and once we have done it once it should be reasonably pain free. Anyhow, patches welcome ;) Jonathan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-02-24 20:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CAKzfze-B4dx9aghERaRDu7xz0i6pMJcAUGMQX7OWJpWh7i=bxw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAKzfze-B4dx9aghERaRDu7xz0i6pMJcAUGMQX7OWJpWh7i=bxw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2016-02-21 20:33 ` [RFC] i2c_check_functionality and error code Jonathan Cameron
[not found] ` <56CA1F0D.2060707-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2016-02-21 22:56 ` Wolfram Sang
2016-02-24 20:42 ` Jonathan Cameron
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).