Dear Heiko Schocher, > Hello Marek, > > Am 04.11.2013 14:13, schrieb Marek Vasut: > > Hi Heiko, > > > >> Hello Stefano, Marek, > >> > >> Am 04.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Stefano Babic: > >>> Hi Marek, > >>> > >>> On 04/11/2013 12:50, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>> Hi Stefano, > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Marek, > >>>>> > >>>>> On 02/11/2013 18:23, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>> + if (!timeout) { > >>>>>> + debug("MXS I2C: Failed receiving data! > > > > \n"); > > > >>>>>> + return -EINVAL; > >>>>>> + } > >>>>>> + > >>>>> > >>>>> This is a real error and not a debug information. IMHO it should be > >>>>> better to print the error unconditionally with puts/printf, reporting > >>>>> that the timer elapsed. > >>>> > >>>> Returning -EINVAL will make the i2c stack trigger an output, so having > >>>> it duplicated here is pointless I believe. > >>> > >>> Agree on that. But then, should we not return -ETIMEDOUT (-110) ? We > >> > >> Yes, that should be -ETIMEDOUT > > > > Full ACK. > > > >>> should print the error code in the i2c stack (do_i2c_read) instead of > >>> checking only if the return value is not null, as we do now. > >> > >> Yep, printing in do_i2c_read() the error code would be nice. Patches > >> are welcome :-) > > > > OK, shall I also print out an error message then? > > You mean in the mxs i2c driver? I think, this is not needed, as > Stefano suggested.
OK, thanks! V2 out. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot