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