[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5764CA24.1080803@roeck-us.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:12:20 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Stephen Barber <smbarber@...omium.org>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Enric Balletbo <enric.balletbo@...labora.co.uk>,
Randall Spangler <rspangler@...omium.org>,
Shawn Nematbakhsh <shawnn@...omium.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Todd Broch <tbroch@...omium.org>,
Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>,
Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [v3,1/4] mfd: cros_ec: Add cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status helper
On 06/17/2016 06:08 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 02:41:51PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:58:12PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> +int cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
>>> + struct cros_ec_command *msg)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + ret = cros_ec_cmd_xfer(ec_dev, msg);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + dev_err(ec_dev->dev, "Command xfer error (err:%d)\n", ret);
>>> + else if (msg->result != EC_RES_SUCCESS)
>>> + return -EECRESULT - msg->result;
>>
>> I have been wondering about the error return codes here, and if they should be
>> converted to standard Linux error codes. For example, I just hit error -1003
>> with a driver I am working on. This translates to EC_RES_INVALID_PARAM, or,
>> in Linux terms, -EINVAL. I think it would be better to use standard error
>> codes, especially since some of the errors are logged.
>
> How do you propose we do that? Do all of the following become EINVAL?
>
> EC_RES_INVALID_COMMAND
> EC_RES_INVALID_PARAM
> EC_RES_INVALID_VERSION
> EC_RES_INVALID_HEADER
>
Personal preference, but yes.
> We lose a lot of information that way. And particularly, cros_ec_num_pwms()
> won't be able to count as accurately. But I can just go back to not using this
You lost me there, sorry.
> API if that's what you'd like...
>
That isn't what I suggested.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists