On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Bjorn Andersson
wrote:
> Linus, Alexandre, please feel free to apply this with -ENOTSUPP in
> accordance to Alexandre's comment in [1], if you prefer that. I picked
> -EIO as that's what's used in most other places when the get() op is
> missing.
I applied as-is f
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Bjorn Andersson
wrote:
> It's possible to have gpio chips hanging off unreliable remote buses
> where the get() operation will fail to acquire a readout of the current
> gpio state. Propagate these errors to the consumer so that they can
> act on, retry or ignore
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Bjorn Andersson
wrote:
> On Fri 28 Aug 09:44 PDT 2015, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>
>> It's possible to have gpio chips hanging off unreliable remote buses
>> where the get() operation will fail to acquire a readout of the current
>> gpio state. Propagate these errors t
On Fri 28 Aug 09:44 PDT 2015, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> It's possible to have gpio chips hanging off unreliable remote buses
> where the get() operation will fail to acquire a readout of the current
> gpio state. Propagate these errors to the consumer so that they can
> act on, retry or ignore thes
It's possible to have gpio chips hanging off unreliable remote buses
where the get() operation will fail to acquire a readout of the current
gpio state. Propagate these errors to the consumer so that they can
act on, retry or ignore these failing reads, instead of treating them as
the line being he
5 matches
Mail list logo