| Message ID | 1574162632-65848-1-git-send-email-mine260309@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Deferred |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] docs: i2c: Fix return value of i2c_smbus_xxx functions | expand |
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 07:23:52PM +0800, Lei YU wrote: > In i2c/dev-interface.rst it said > > > All these transactions return -1 on failure > > But actually the i2c_smbus_xxx functions return negative error numbers > on failure, instead of -1. > > Fix the document and remove the following sentence. > > Signed-off-by: Lei YU <mine260309@gmail.com> > --- > Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst | 9 ++++----- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst b/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst > index 69c23a3..f2f2b28 100644 > --- a/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst > +++ b/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst > @@ -163,11 +163,10 @@ for details) through the following functions:: > __s32 i2c_smbus_write_block_data(int file, __u8 command, __u8 length, > __u8 *values); > > -All these transactions return -1 on failure; you can read errno to see > -what happened. The 'write' transactions return 0 on success; the > -'read' transactions return the read value, except for read_block, which > -returns the number of values read. The block buffers need not be longer > -than 32 bytes. > +All these transactions return a negative error number on failure. > +The 'write' transactions return 0 on success; the 'read' transactions > +return the read value, except for read_block, which returns the number > +of values read. The block buffers need not be longer than 32 bytes. I think the correct solution is to remove this paragraph entirely. Because the returned value does not depend on the kernel but on the libi2c version. Check this commit from 2012 in the i2c-tools repo: 330bba2 ("libi2c: Properly propagate real error codes on read errors") So, I think we should document it there. Jean, what do you think? > The above functions are made available by linking against the libi2c library, > which is provided by the i2c-tools project. See: > -- > 2.7.4 >
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:48:57 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 07:23:52PM +0800, Lei YU wrote: > > In i2c/dev-interface.rst it said > > > > > All these transactions return -1 on failure > > > > But actually the i2c_smbus_xxx functions return negative error numbers > > on failure, instead of -1. > > > > Fix the document and remove the following sentence. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lei YU <mine260309@gmail.com> > > --- > > Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst | 9 ++++----- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst b/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst > > index 69c23a3..f2f2b28 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst > > @@ -163,11 +163,10 @@ for details) through the following functions:: > > __s32 i2c_smbus_write_block_data(int file, __u8 command, __u8 length, > > __u8 *values); > > > > -All these transactions return -1 on failure; you can read errno to see > > -what happened. The 'write' transactions return 0 on success; the > > -'read' transactions return the read value, except for read_block, which > > -returns the number of values read. The block buffers need not be longer > > -than 32 bytes. > > +All these transactions return a negative error number on failure. > > +The 'write' transactions return 0 on success; the 'read' transactions > > +return the read value, except for read_block, which returns the number > > +of values read. The block buffers need not be longer than 32 bytes. > > I think the correct solution is to remove this paragraph entirely. > Because the returned value does not depend on the kernel but on the > libi2c version. Check this commit from 2012 in the i2c-tools repo: > > 330bba2 ("libi2c: Properly propagate real error codes on read errors") > > So, I think we should document it there. Jean, what do you think? I would go further and move half of the document to i2c-tools. i2c-dev itself only provides the ioctls. Everything on top of that is in libi2c now, so the kernel documentation should point to libi2c and the detailed documentation should come with libi2c. So I guess I should review the whole document now to see what needs to be updated, what should stay, and what should move.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 6:52 PM Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:48:57 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 07:23:52PM +0800, Lei YU wrote: > > > In i2c/dev-interface.rst it said > > > > > > > All these transactions return -1 on failure > > > > > > But actually the i2c_smbus_xxx functions return negative error numbers > > > on failure, instead of -1. > > > > > > Fix the document and remove the following sentence. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lei YU <mine260309@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst | 9 ++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst b/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst > > > index 69c23a3..f2f2b28 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst > > > @@ -163,11 +163,10 @@ for details) through the following functions:: > > > __s32 i2c_smbus_write_block_data(int file, __u8 command, __u8 length, > > > __u8 *values); > > > > > > -All these transactions return -1 on failure; you can read errno to see > > > -what happened. The 'write' transactions return 0 on success; the > > > -'read' transactions return the read value, except for read_block, which > > > -returns the number of values read. The block buffers need not be longer > > > -than 32 bytes. > > > +All these transactions return a negative error number on failure. > > > +The 'write' transactions return 0 on success; the 'read' transactions > > > +return the read value, except for read_block, which returns the number > > > +of values read. The block buffers need not be longer than 32 bytes. > > > > I think the correct solution is to remove this paragraph entirely. > > Because the returned value does not depend on the kernel but on the > > libi2c version. Check this commit from 2012 in the i2c-tools repo: > > > > 330bba2 ("libi2c: Properly propagate real error codes on read errors") > > > > So, I think we should document it there. Jean, what do you think? > > I would go further and move half of the document to i2c-tools. i2c-dev > itself only provides the ioctls. Everything on top of that is in libi2c > now, so the kernel documentation should point to libi2c and the > detailed documentation should come with libi2c. Yeah, I sent the patch to simply fix the "return -1" issue, which is misleading. But if the whole paragraph or the whole document is not valid anymore, it needs to be fixed. > > So I guess I should review the whole document now to see what needs to > be updated, what should stay, and what should move. Thanks, please help to fix the whole document so that others get the correct information :) > > -- > Jean Delvare > SUSE L3 Support
> > > -All these transactions return -1 on failure; you can read errno to see > > > -what happened. The 'write' transactions return 0 on success; the > > > -'read' transactions return the read value, except for read_block, which > > > -returns the number of values read. The block buffers need not be longer > > > -than 32 bytes. > > > +All these transactions return a negative error number on failure. > > > +The 'write' transactions return 0 on success; the 'read' transactions > > > +return the read value, except for read_block, which returns the number > > > +of values read. The block buffers need not be longer than 32 bytes. > > > > I think the correct solution is to remove this paragraph entirely. > > Because the returned value does not depend on the kernel but on the > > libi2c version. Check this commit from 2012 in the i2c-tools repo: > > > > 330bba2 ("libi2c: Properly propagate real error codes on read errors") > > > > So, I think we should document it there. Jean, what do you think? > > I would go further and move half of the document to i2c-tools. i2c-dev > itself only provides the ioctls. Everything on top of that is in libi2c > now, so the kernel documentation should point to libi2c and the > detailed documentation should come with libi2c. > > So I guess I should review the whole document now to see what needs to > be updated, what should stay, and what should move. Maybe you can collaborate with Luca on this who just revamped a lot of the docs? Putting him on CC and marking this patch as 'Deferred'.
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 14:01:09 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > I would go further and move half of the document to i2c-tools. i2c-dev > > itself only provides the ioctls. Everything on top of that is in libi2c > > now, so the kernel documentation should point to libi2c and the > > detailed documentation should come with libi2c. > > > > So I guess I should review the whole document now to see what needs to > > be updated, what should stay, and what should move. > > Maybe you can collaborate with Luca on this who just revamped a lot of > the docs? Putting him on CC and marking this patch as 'Deferred'. I'm resuming my work on this. Luca, can you point me to your changes to Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst so that I can adjust my own changes to fit on top? Thanks,
Hi Jean, On 09/01/20 17:39, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 14:01:09 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>> I would go further and move half of the document to i2c-tools. i2c-dev >>> itself only provides the ioctls. Everything on top of that is in libi2c >>> now, so the kernel documentation should point to libi2c and the >>> detailed documentation should come with libi2c. >>> >>> So I guess I should review the whole document now to see what needs to >>> be updated, what should stay, and what should move. >> >> Maybe you can collaborate with Luca on this who just revamped a lot of >> the docs? Putting him on CC and marking this patch as 'Deferred'. > > I'm resuming my work on this. Luca, can you point me to your changes to > Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst so that I can adjust my own changes > to fit on top? Commits 4 and 26 of this series: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=151292 Pretty trivial patches anyway, I haven't really tackled that specific file so far, which is good as you are planning to remove all/most of it.
diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst b/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst index 69c23a3..f2f2b28 100644 --- a/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst +++ b/Documentation/i2c/dev-interface.rst @@ -163,11 +163,10 @@ for details) through the following functions:: __s32 i2c_smbus_write_block_data(int file, __u8 command, __u8 length, __u8 *values); -All these transactions return -1 on failure; you can read errno to see -what happened. The 'write' transactions return 0 on success; the -'read' transactions return the read value, except for read_block, which -returns the number of values read. The block buffers need not be longer -than 32 bytes. +All these transactions return a negative error number on failure. +The 'write' transactions return 0 on success; the 'read' transactions +return the read value, except for read_block, which returns the number +of values read. The block buffers need not be longer than 32 bytes. The above functions are made available by linking against the libi2c library, which is provided by the i2c-tools project. See: