Hi Heiko,
> Hello Lukasz,
>
> Am 10.04.2014 12:08, schrieb Lukasz Majewski:
> > Hi Pantelis,
> >
> >> Hi Marek,
> >>
> >> On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, April 10, 2014 at 07:08:06 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> >>>> add a possibility to add a medium specific polltimeout
> >>>> function. So it is possible to define different
> >>>> poll timeouts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Used on nand medium, for setting the DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT
> >>>> only on nand ubi partitions, which is currently the only
> >>>> usecase.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher<h...@denx.de>
> >>>> Cc: Lukasz Majewski<l.majew...@samsung.com>
> >>>> Cc: Kyungmin Park<kyungmin.p...@samsung.com>
> >>>> Cc: Marek Vasut<ma...@denx.de>
> >>>> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou<pa...@antoniou-consulting.com>
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> @@ -174,6 +174,17 @@ static void dnload_request_flush(struct
> >>>> usb_ep *ep, struct usb_request *req) req->length,
> >>>> f_dfu->blk_seq_num); }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static void dfu_set_poll_timeout_manifest(struct dfu_status
> >>>> *dstat,
> >>>> + struct f_dfu *f_dfu)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct dfu_entity *dfu =
> >>>> dfu_get_entity(f_dfu->altsetting); +
> >>>> + if (dfu->poll_timeout)
> >>>> + dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat,
> >>>> dfu->poll_timeout(dfu));
> >>>> + else
> >>>> + dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat,
> >>>> DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT); +}
> >>>
> >>> Don't you think it'd be better (yet more intrusive) to have all
> >>> the DFU users have default implementation of
> >>> dfu->poll_timeout() ? Then you'd be able to avoid this if and
> >>> even get rid of this dfu_set_poll_timeout_manifest() function.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Could work, but why not a simple accessor like this:
> >>
> >> static inline unsigned int dfu_get_poll_timeout(struct dfu_entity
> >> *dfu) {
> >>
> >> return dfu->poll_timeout ? dfu->poll_timeout(dfu);
> >> DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT);
> >> }
> >>
> >> and dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat, dfu_get_poll_timeout(dfu));
> >>
> >> You even get the benefit of have a method to read the timeout value
> >> if we ever needed sometime in the future.
> >
> > Seems reasonable for me: +1
>
> Yep, good idea, I change this.
>
> > Some comment:
> >
> > Guys, please be consistent with CCing people. I didn't receive this
> > thread. Also this original reply from Pantelis was not CCed to
> > Heiko.
>
> Hmm.. I lloked in my received EMails, and I see you always on cc ... ?
I wasn't added to CC in the original patch 2/2.
I was only added to Cc below the Signed-of-by, but then I was missing
in the CC of the message itself.
>
> bye,
> Heiko
--
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
