The existing driver erroneously treats I2C_BLOCK_DATA and BLOCK_DATA
commands the same.

For I2C_BLOCK_DATA reads, the length of the read is provided in
data->block[0], but the length itself should not be sent to the slave. In
contrast, for BLOCK_DATA reads no length is specified since the length
will be the first byte returned from the slave. When copying data back
to the data buffer, for an I2C_BLOCK_DATA read we have to take care not to
overwrite data->block[0] to avoid overwriting the length. A BLOCK_DATA
read doesn't have this concern since the first byte returned by the device
is the length and belongs in data->block[0].

For I2C_BLOCK_DATA writes, the length is also provided in data->block[0],
but the length itself is not sent to the slave (in contrast to BLOCK_DATA
writes where the length prefixes the data sent to the slave).

This was tested on physical hardware using i2cdump with the i and s flags
to test the behavior of I2C_BLOCK_DATA reads and BLOCK_DATA reads,
respectively. Writes were not tested but the I2C_BLOCK_DATA write change
is pretty simple to verify by inspection.
Signed-off-by: NEudean Sun <eudean@arista.com>
Signed-off-by: NJiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>