[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200905192149.07778.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:49:07 -0700
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc: Wolfgang Mües <wolfgang.mues@...rswald.de>,
Pierre Ossman <drzeus@...eus.cx>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc_spi: use EILSEQ for possible transmission errors
On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Matt Fleming wrote:
> Hmm, always returning -EILSEQ is devious. What happens if we sent an
> illegal command? The value of "value" is passed up to the callers via
> cmd->error and so may eventually get printed in the pr_debug() call in
> mmc_request_done(), line 86.
True, but a pr_debug from mmc_spi could help that. A patch doing
that would need to be less aggressive about ripping out the current
fault-parsing logic, but it could continue reporting -EILSEQ to
cope with the possible response mangling.
> Whereas before the error would display EINVAL for an illegal command
> now it'll display EILSEQ, which makes no sense. Seeing EILSEQ in my
> log when really the error is EINVAL is gonna really confuse me.
>
> IMHO always assuming that command errors are caused by transmission
> problems is not the right solution.
Do you have a better solution to propose though? If Wolfgang
is actually observing transmission errors there, I'm not sure
a better one is to be had.
Though I wonder what this would do for anyone trying SDIO over
the mmc_spi driver.
- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists