On 03/26/2012 06:42 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
On 26/03/2012 15:35, Eric Nelson wrote:
On 03/26/2012 01:35 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
On 26/03/2012 01:00, Eric Nelson wrote:
V2 has been stripped of the board-independent changes and
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
+#ifdef CONFIG_CMD_SATA
+
+int setup_sata(void)
+{
+ int rval = enable_sata_clock();
What about to return at this point if there is an error ?
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean re-structure the code with
two returns like this?
No, much easier - I find the code is easy to understand if it looks like
if the function returns immediately in case of error.
if (do_something())
return ERROR;
< code when no error happens>
Your enable_sata_clock() return only -1 in case of error. You could
easy write:
if (enable_sata_clock())
return -1 (or better a value in errno.h)
>
The choice of error code is better made inside enable_sata_clock(),
although I'm not really sure what error code to choose.
The error occurs if the PLL fails to lock and would indicate that
something's horribly wrong.
I'm guessing -EIO is probably the right choice.
If you agree, I'll send V2 of "i.MX6: add enable_sata_clock()" and
V3 of "i.MX6: mx6q_sabrelite: add SATA bindings".
Please advise,
Eric
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
