lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/2] i2c: Add i2c_verify_device_id() to verify device id
From
Date
On 2018-04-08 09:34, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:10:58AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Commit dde67eb1beeb ("i2c: add i2c_get_device_id() to get the standard
>> I2C device id") added a function to return the standard I2C device ID.
>> Use that function to verify the device ID of a given device.
>
> I am very open to these patches, just...
>
>>
>> Cc: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>> ---
>> RFC:
>> - Compile tested only
>
> ... I would really like to have them tested. After that happened, Peter
> and I can figure out who should apply them for seamless upstreaming.
>
>> - Should there also be I2C_DEVICE_PART_ID_ANY to enable maching
>> against all parts from a given manufacturer ?
>
> Can't we just add it when we need it?
>
>> + dev_err(&client->dev, "unexpected device id %03x-%03x-%x\n",
>> + real_id.manufacturer_id, real_id.part_id,
>> + real_id.die_revision);
>> + return -ENODEV;
>
> I wonder about the ERR loglevel. ENODEV is not an error, I'd think?

Well, in this case someone has said that I2C addr <xyz> is a <uvw> device,
but when verifying the actual device at that addr, that's not what is
found. Hence, I think an error is appropriate? On the other hand, a driver
that can handle different kinds of devices might not want the error. But
for that case, maybe the driver should be using i2c_get_device_id() and
figure out the details by itself?

Cheers,
Peter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-08 11:09    [W:0.129 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site