Hi Fabio, On 11/21/2014 08:42 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
From: Fabio Estevam <fabio.este...@freescale.com>When an invalid USDHC port is passed we should return -EINVAL instead of 0. Also, return the error immediately on fsl_esdhc_initialize() failure. Cc: Eric Benard <e...@eukrea.com> Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.este...@freescale.com> --- board/embest/mx6boards/mx6boards.c | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/board/embest/mx6boards/mx6boards.c b/board/embest/mx6boards/mx6boards.c index 02fb3fa..f8c7468 100644 --- a/board/embest/mx6boards/mx6boards.c +++ b/board/embest/mx6boards/mx6boards.c @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ int board_mmc_getcd(struct mmc *mmc) int board_mmc_init(bd_t *bis) { - s32 status = 0; + int ret; int i; /* @@ -268,13 +268,15 @@ int board_mmc_init(bd_t *bis) printf("Warning: you configured more USDHC controllers" "(%d) then supported by the board (%d)\n", i + 1, CONFIG_SYS_FSL_USDHC_NUM); - return status; + return -EINVAL; } - status |= fsl_esdhc_initialize(bis, &usdhc_cfg[i]); + ret = fsl_esdhc_initialize(bis, &usdhc_cfg[i]); + if (ret) + return ret; } - return status; + return 0; } #endif
Excuse me for the (very) late question, but just stumbled upon this patch. Isn't it possible to continue the initialization of the next ESDHC module when the current one fails? Even if there's a case of common initialization failure across all ESDHC interfaces, isn't it better to continue the initialization and preserve the interface abstraction, as if we don't know the implementation details, e.g. pretend we don't know there's a common failure mechanism across all ESDHCs and still try to init them 1 by 1. Please don't consider this as NACK, I'm just sharing my thoughts. Kind regards, Nikolay _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
