Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message <4c87cfe8.8010...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
> Dear Mike Frysinger,
> > On Monday, September 06, 2010 10:59:16 Reinhard Meyer wrote:
> >> +int enc_miiphy_read(const char *devname, u8 phy_adr, u8 reg, u16 *value)
> >> +{
> >> + struct eth_device *dev = eth_get_dev_by_name(devname);
> >> + if (dev) {
> >> + enc_dev_t *enc = to_enc(dev);
> >> +
> >> + if (phy_adr != 0)
> >> + return -1;
> >> + spi_claim_bus(enc->slave);
> >> + *value = phy_read(enc, reg);
> >> + spi_release_bus(enc->slave);
> >> + return 0;
> >> + }
> >> + return -1;
> >> +}
> >
> > seems like this (and the write func) would be nicer if it were:
> > if (!dev)
> > return -1;
> > ...
>
> Umm, no. That would split enc_dev_t *enc = to_enc (dev) into two lines:
> Declaration, if, assigment
Yes? What's the problem with that? But then you can unindent a whole
block of code one level, which means the code is much easier toi read
and to maintain.
Please do as Mike suggested.
> > check the return value
>
> OK, for sake of completeness in every function using it..
> Hmm blows up the code :)
Yes, error handling blows up the code. But it helpos a lot to make
programs reliable and robust.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
There has been an alarming increase in the number of things you know
nothing about.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
