On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Joakim
Tjernlund<joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> wrote:
>
> I wonder if this hides another problem too.
> if the timeout hits, -1 is returned.
>
> Then in i2c_read()/i2c_write() you have:
> if (i2c_wait4bus() >= 0
> && i2c_write_addr(dev, I2C_WRITE_BIT, 0) != 0
> && __i2c_write(&a[4 - alen], alen) == alen)
> i = 0; /* No error so far */
> notice how the latter part, i2c_write_addr(dev, I2C_WRITE_BIT, 0) != 0
> && __i2c_write(&a[4 - alen], alen) == alen)
> is ignored(never called) when i2c_wait4bus() returns -1
Yeah, that is a bit odd. It looks like it was supposed to be some
short-cut way to avoid multiple if-then-else clauses.
I wouldn't say my patch is *hiding* another problem -- that code looks
broken either way.
Someone should probably fix it to look like this:
if (i2c_wait4bus() < 0)
return -1;
if (!i2c_write_addr(dev, I2C_WRITE_BIT, 0))
return -1;
if (__i2c_write(&a[4 - alen], alen) != alen)
return -1;
and so on.
i = 0; /* No error so far */
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
