Hi, Minkyu
> Hi Lukasz,
>
> On 3 April 2012 23:24, Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@samsung.com> wrote:
> > This code adds call to mmc_init(), for partition related commands
> > (e.g. fatls, fatinfo etc.).
> >
> > It is safe to call mmc_init() multiple times since mmc->has_init
> > flag prevents from multiple initialization.
> >
> > The FAT related code calls get_dev high level method and then uses
> > elements from mmc->block_dev, which is uninitialized until the
> > mmc_init (and thereof mmc_startup) is called.
> >
> > This problem appears on boards, which don't use mmc as the default
> > place for envs
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@samsung.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.p...@samsung.com>
> > Cc: Andy Fleming <aflem...@gmail.com>
> >
> > ---
> > Test HW:
> > - GONI S5PC110
> > - Universal C210 (Exynos4)
> > ---
> > drivers/mmc/mmc.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
> > index 618960e..1fa90e7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
> > @@ -1305,8 +1305,12 @@ int mmc_register(struct mmc *mmc)
> > block_dev_desc_t *mmc_get_dev(int dev)
> > {
> > struct mmc *mmc = find_mmc_device(dev);
> > + if (mmc) {
> > + mmc_init(mmc);
> > + return &mmc->block_dev;
> > + }
> >
> > - return mmc ? &mmc->block_dev : NULL;
> > + return NULL;
> > }
> > #endif
> >
>
> I think
>
> if (!mmc)
> return NULL;
>
> mmc_init(mmc);
> return &mmc->block_dev;
>
> is better.
> How you think?
Yes, it seems also more readable for me.
But anyway Andy shall express his opinion.
--
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
Samsung Poland R&D Center
Platform Group
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
