[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141001211657.GA7904@svl-evodev-groeck.juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 14:16:57 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <groeck@...iper.net>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
CC: Danielle Costantino <danielle.costantino@...il.com>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Rajat Jain <rajatjain@...iper.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Proposal] PM sleep children of inactive I2C bus segments
off Masters in multi-master systems
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:10:47PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > Maybe you can find an error code which with some level of confidence
> > reflects "lost mastership". Then you can implement whatever makes sense
> > for your use case in your user space application(s).
>
> We have a documented fault code for ArbitrationLost and that is -EAGAIN
> (see Documentation/i2c/fault-codes). If a driver does use something
> else, patches are very welcome.
>
> Other than that, I find this thread very confusing. Of course can
> another master modify the clients, this is what multi-master is all
> about, no?
>
That is the point I was trying to make in one of my earlier replies.
Guenter
--
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