I'm sorry for being late.
this is second patch that your concern is solved.
Please review this patch.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
InKi Dae.
2010/4/28 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:
quoted text > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:55:01 -0400
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:41:54 +0900 InKi Dae <daeinki@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Andrew,
>> >
>> > all the calls to s6e63m0_panel_send_sequence() would return -EINVAL.
>> > by api_async() of driver/spi/spi.c
>>
>> No, spi_async() does
>>
>> master->transfer(spi, message);
>>
>> which can return at least EIO, EINPROGRESS, EINVAL or ETIMEDOUT.
>>
>> > so I think that those return values aren't changed to other.
>> >
>> > and final step is to check only whether the return value is 0 or not.
>> > if you still think that this code has minor problem or you want it to
>> > be corrected
>> > then I will patch this code to be corrected anytime.
>>
>> It's a bug.
>>
>> Also s6e63m0_power_on() is sloppy. It again or's together disparate
>> errnos. Then if _anything_ failed it returns hardwired -EIO, but it
>> should instead propagate the callee's errno back up to the caller.
>>
>> And s6e63m0_power_on() can return -EFAULT in several places, which is
>> nonsensical.
>>
>> None of this is very critical, just ... sloppy.
>>
>
> ping?
>
