Ok, I feel dumb. I apparently applied this already. But I'm still interested in a response to my comments/questions. :)
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Andy Fleming <aflem...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Michael Jones > <michael.jo...@matrix-vision.de> wrote: >> Fail in 'mmc rescan' if mmc_init() returns error > > I think, if we're going to do this, we should change them all. > > Also, for the purpose you want, it seems like we should consider > adding or modifying a command to just report whether the slot has a > card. > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Jones <michael.jo...@matrix-vision.de> >> --- >> Changes for v2: >> - None. Resubmitting to include custodian in cc: >> >> common/cmd_mmc.c | 6 ++++-- >> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/common/cmd_mmc.c b/common/cmd_mmc.c >> index 176646d..28918f6 100644 >> --- a/common/cmd_mmc.c >> +++ b/common/cmd_mmc.c >> @@ -165,9 +165,11 @@ int do_mmcops(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, >> char * const argv[]) >> } >> >> mmc->has_init = 0; >> - mmc_init(mmc); >> >> - return 0; >> + if (mmc_init(mmc)) >> + return 1; >> + else >> + return 0; > > > Is there a reason to return 1 instead of returning whatever error > mmc_init() returns? > > ie: > > return mmc_init(mmc); > > > Andy > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot