Joe Hershberger wrote:
>>>> @@ -384,7 +387,11 @@ static int fm_eth_open(struct eth_device *dev, bd_t
>>>> *bd)
>>>> fmc_tx_port_graceful_stop_disable(fm_eth);
>>>>
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PHYLIB
>>>> - phy_startup(fm_eth->phydev);
>>>> + ret = phy_startup(fm_eth->phydev);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + printf("%s: Could not initialize\n",
>>>> fm_eth->phydev->dev->name);
>>>
>>> Why is this string different from the others? Consistency?
>>
>> Yes. I tried to keep the messages consistent with the other messages in
>> the function.
>
> Should you not at least keep the core message the same? "Could not
> initialize PHY"
Well, I suppose I could add the word "PHY" here.
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/sh_eth.c b/drivers/net/sh_eth.c
>>>> index bb57e4d..268d884 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/sh_eth.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/sh_eth.c
>>>> @@ -415,7 +415,11 @@ static int sh_eth_config(struct sh_eth_dev *eth, bd_t
>>>> *bd)
>>>> goto err_phy_cfg;
>>>> }
>>>> phy = port_info->phydev;
>>>> - phy_startup(phy);
>>>> + ret = phy_startup(phy);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + printf(SHETHER_NAME ": phy startup failure\n");
>>>
>>> Why is this string different from the others? Consistency?
>>
>> Yes, it looks like the other messages in sh_eth_config().
>
> Same here, at least the core message "Could not initialize PHY"
I am saying that, just in a different way. "phy startup failure" means
the same as "Could not initialize PHY", but the wording matches the rest
of the function.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
