On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 12:52:03PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 01:17:07PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> >
> > > A recent bootm fix left the error path incomplete. Reinstate this so that
> > > failures in bootm stages are handled properly.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - Correct checking in the no-error case
> >
> >
> > OK, this conflicts with the change I posted (and pushed later than I
> > thought I had). Can you confirm the code is good in mainline now?
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> It's close, but I think it still needs this near the end
> of do_bootm_states(), something like:
>
> else if (ret == BOOTM_ERR_RESET) do_reset(cmdtp, flag, argc, argv); + else
> if (ret) + puts("subcommand not supported\n"); return ret;
>
> If you agree, I can prepare a patch as part of the bootz update.How do we get there in the code? When we do any subcalls is where we've got that puts already. Failures from that point on are either the OS bootm part failed (and return is > 0) or one of the BOOTM_ERR codes. Or did I miss a case still? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
