On Sunday, September 21, 2014 at 10:00:24 PM, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
> Hi Marek
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 21, 2014 at 07:53:35 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> >> - if (length > usb_maxpacket(dev, pipe)) {
> >> >> - printf("%s: Interrupt transfers requiring several "
> >> >> - "transactions are not supported.\n",
> >> >> __func__); - return -1;
> >> >> - }
> >> >> -
> >> >>
> >> >> queue = create_int_queue(dev, pipe, 1, length, buffer);
> >> >>
> >> >> + if (!queue)
> >> >> + return -1;
> >> >
> >> > Can you return a more consistent error code?
> >>
> >> I'm just moving code around, and returning the same error code as
> >> before. Surely changing the error code belongs in another patch ?
> >
> > Yes, full ACK. This is exactly a prime examply where squashing two fixes
> > into one patch would break bisectability absolutely perfectly.
>
> Agree on separated patch, I have just ask if Hans can do in the
> patches queue. Marek, thanks for the lesson. Anyway seems that in USB
> part we have already several -1 return.
You know how it goes, patches are welcome ;-)
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
