On 1/4/24 13:28, Weizhao Ouyang wrote:
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 8:21 PM Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com> wrote:
On 1/4/24 13:15, Weizhao Ouyang wrote:
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 8:00 PM Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com> wrote:
On 1/4/24 12:46, Weizhao Ouyang wrote:
Handle the return value of spi_flash_probe_bus_cs() to avoid sf probe
crashes.
Signed-off-by: Weizhao Ouyang <o451686...@gmail.com>
---
cmd/sf.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmd/sf.c b/cmd/sf.c
index 730996c02b..e3866899f6 100644
--- a/cmd/sf.c
+++ b/cmd/sf.c
@@ -135,8 +135,9 @@ static int do_spi_flash_probe(int argc, char *const argv[])
}
flash = NULL;
if (use_dt) {
- spi_flash_probe_bus_cs(bus, cs, &new);
- flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(new);
+ ret = spi_flash_probe_bus_cs(bus, cs, &new);
if (ret)
return ret;
don't you want to rather propagate that error?
Well, since the spi_flash is empty, the following code will
print the error message and return.
And you return 0 which means everything is fine. But is everything fine in this
case? Or do you want to see the error?
This is command it means you can simply use && and if previous command succeed
you can call something else.
Hi Michal,
Please check the code that follows this commit snippet:
if (!flash) {
printf("Failed to initialize SPI flash at %u:%u (error %d)\n",
bus, cs, ret);
return 1;
}
it will print the error and return 1 as the return value.
ok. Then good.
Acked-by: Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com>
Thanks,
Michal
