Hi.
On 09/23/2015 06:39 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
>
>> exynos_mmc_init() always returns zero, so for the caller
>> it looks like it never fails.
>>
>> Correct this by returning the error code of process_nodes().
>> For process_nodes() do something similar and return early
>> when do_sdhci_init() fails.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tobias Jakobi <tjak...@math.uni-bielefeld.de>
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/s5p_sdhci.c | 10 ++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/s5p_sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/s5p_sdhci.c
>> index e9c43a9..bc2102a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/s5p_sdhci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/s5p_sdhci.c
>> @@ -187,7 +187,11 @@ static int process_nodes(const void *blob, int
>> node_list[], int count) printf("%s: failed to decode dev
>> %d\n", __func__, i); return -1;
>> }
>> - do_sdhci_init(host);
>> +
>> + if (do_sdhci_init(host)) {
>> + printf("%s: failed to initialize dev %d\n",
>> __func__, i);
>> + return -2;
>
> IMHO, it would be better to write this code as follows:
>
> ret = do_sdhci_init(host);
> if (ret) {
>
> printf();
> return ret;
> }
I think it should be replaced to "continue;", not "return ret;"
If returned the fail, then next host can't initialize.(if there is next host..)
So maybe, it didn't use "return ret".
Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung
>
> In the above code you read the exact return code from do_sdhci_init()
> and then you pass it to upper layer.
>
> Returning only -2 is far less informational.
>
>> + }
>> }
>> return 0;
>> }
>> @@ -201,8 +205,6 @@ int exynos_mmc_init(const void *blob)
>> COMPAT_SAMSUNG_EXYNOS_MMC, node_list,
>> SDHCI_MAX_HOSTS);
>>
>> - process_nodes(blob, node_list, count);
>> -
>> - return 0;
>> + return process_nodes(blob, node_list, count);
>> }
>> #endif
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
