Hi Tom,
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
I think this is when the boot_os function returns an error. At least the
old code had quite a lot of printf()s for that case.
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
