linux-i2c.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
To: Matt Ranostay <mranostay-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	"linux-iio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
	<linux-iio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa-z923LK4zBo2bacvFa/9K2g@public.gmane.org>,
	Linux I2C <linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] i2c_check_functionality and error code
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:33:17 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56CA1F0D.2060707@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKzfze-B4dx9aghERaRDu7xz0i6pMJcAUGMQX7OWJpWh7i=bxw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>

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
> 

       reply	other threads:[~2016-02-21 20:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CAKzfze-B4dx9aghERaRDu7xz0i6pMJcAUGMQX7OWJpWh7i=bxw@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found] ` <CAKzfze-B4dx9aghERaRDu7xz0i6pMJcAUGMQX7OWJpWh7i=bxw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2016-02-21 20:33   ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
     [not found]     ` <56CA1F0D.2060707-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2016-02-21 22:56       ` [RFC] i2c_check_functionality and error code Wolfram Sang
2016-02-24 20:42         ` Jonathan Cameron

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=56CA1F0D.2060707@kernel.org \
    --to=jic23-dgejt+ai2ygdnm+yrofe0a@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=linux-iio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=mranostay-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=wsa-z923LK4zBo2bacvFa/9K2g@public.gmane.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
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).