Re: [v3,1/4] mfd: cros_ec: Add cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status helper

[Guenter Roeck]

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