Hi Fabrice,
On 19 October 2018 at 01:40, Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasn...@st.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/19/2018 05:25 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Fabrice,
> >
> > On 11 October 2018 at 10:00, Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasn...@st.com> wrote:
> >> Enhance adc info command to report also the channel mask.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasn...@st.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> cmd/adc.c | 6 +++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/cmd/adc.c b/cmd/adc.c
> >> index c8857ed..39f61c1 100644
> >> --- a/cmd/adc.c
> >> +++ b/cmd/adc.c
> >> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static int do_adc_info(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int
> >> argc,
> >> char *const argv[])
> >> {
> >> struct udevice *dev;
> >> - unsigned int data_mask;
> >> + unsigned int data_mask, ch_mask;
> >> int ret, vss, vdd;
> >>
> >> if (argc < 2)
> >> @@ -49,6 +49,10 @@ static int do_adc_info(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int
> >> argc,
> >>
> >> printf("ADC Device '%s' :\n", argv[1]);
> >>
> >> + ret = adc_channel_mask(dev, &ch_mask);
> >
> > Could this just return the channel mask in the return value (or -ve on
> > error)?
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> Channel mask is unsigned, so I would prefer to rely on (signed) ret to
> return -ve on error, or success. And use pointer for the unsigned mask.
>
> Do you agree to keep this approach ?
Yes that's OK with me.
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
