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