[ltp] Re: [PATCH v2] Re: Battery class driver.

[Shem Multinymous]

On 11/1/06, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 13:26 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > With the battery class driver, how would that be conveyed? Would the
> > > sysfs file be deleted in this case, or would the value of the sysfs
> > > key be something like "<invalid>".
> >
> > I'd be inclined to make the read return -EINVAL.
>
> -EIO for transient errors (e.g. access to the embedded controller/battery
> charger/whatever fails at that instant), -EINVAL for "not supported"
> (missing ACPI method, attribute not supported in the specific hardware)?

Shouldn't it be -EIO or -EBUSY for transient errors (depending on
type), and -ENXIO when not provided by hardware?
The -EINVAL is more appropriate for bad user-supplied values (out of
range etc.) to writable attributes.

  Shem