Wolfgang & Ilya,
Sorry for responding to both of you at the same time...
On 6/22/2010 11:14 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Ilya Yanok,
>
> In message<4c1f5a54.4050...@emcraft.com> you wrote:
>
>>
>>> Entry to MAINTAINERS missing.
>>>
>> Should I add you as a maintainer or myself?
>>
> You did the actual work...
>
>
>>>> +int board_eth_init(bd_t *bis)
>>>> +{
>>>> + cpu_eth_init(bis); /* Initialize TSECs first */
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think it's wrong to ignore the return code here.
>>>
>> What makes you think so? What can we do with the return code here? Print
>> warning? If we return error from board_eth_init() calling code will call
>> cpu_eth_init() again which is useless as we have already called it.
>>
>
Yes, print a warning if < 0. As you've noticed, returning -1 wouldn't
be good. I'm not aware of a U-boot policy for handling hardware
problems other than printf.
>>>> + return pci_eth_init(bis);
>>>>
> My understanding is that pci_eth_init() and board_eth_init() return
> the number of NIC's found - should that number not include the number
> of successfully initialized TSECs?
>
>
Yes, please. Something like:
int board_eth_init(bd_t *bis)
{
int rc, num_if = 0;
if ((rc = cpu_eth_init(bis)) >= 0)
{
num_if += rc;
} else {
print error message
}
if ((rc = pci_eth_init(bis)) >= 0)
{
num_if += rc;
} else {
print error message
}
return num_if;
}
I'm working on changing net/eth.c to be less kludgy, but am having a
hard time setting up my test bed. Hopefully in the next few days.
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
>
regards,
Ben
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
