Hi Heinrich, On 17 November 2017 at 11:28, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 11/17/2017 03:06 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> On 12 November 2017 at 07:02, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> >>> Provide a test for the EFI_DEVICE_PATH_TO_TEXT_PROTOCOL protocol. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> >>> --- >>> v2 >>> no change >>> --- >>> lib/efi_selftest/Makefile | 3 + >>> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_devicepath.c | 340 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 343 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_devicepath.c >> >> >> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >> >> I wish we could just use 0 instead of EFI_SUCCESS > > > 0 does not convey any meaning to me. This is why I tend to use > > * NULL instead of 0 and > * EINVAL instead of 22. > > But obviously this is a matter of taste.
Sure, it's no big deal to me. Certainly in drive rmodel I have used 0 for success. To me, EFI_SUCCESS is just UEFI code style bleeding into U-Boot :-) > > Regards > > Heinrich > > >> >> and if (!xx) to check for success. >> >> The source code is looking too much like EFI for my liking! >> >> Regards, >> Simon >> > Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
