On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 01:21:09PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> 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.We had a printf per subcommand before, and just a single one now. We didn't say the 'go' subcommand failed however, just what the function happened to print out. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
