Dear Sam,
In message <20180719222843.28316-1-semen.protse...@linaro.org> you wrote:
>
> 1. With no "Failed" message, at some point we *can* end up with no
> error messages printed at all
That would mean that we did not check the whole call tree as needed.
It is not that complicated, or is it?
> 2. Removing some collateral error messages *may* lead to loss of useful
> debug info in other use-cases (env_load() is not only user of those
> APIs).
I dislike the "can" and "may" parts here. If this is done
thoroughly, we should know exactly that no such damage gets done.
As I mentioend before: if we get here, somewhere an error must have
occurred. And in the error handling an error message (one) must be
printed.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any
other human construct because no two parts are alike. If they are, we
make the two similar parts into a subroutine -- open or closed. In
this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers,
buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound.
- Fred Brooks, Jr.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
