From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] e1000: fix bugs from recent commits
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 22:19:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111028201950.191081809855@gemini.denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJaTeTpeNDdV4g+n4cE0GVe8uBxgjUdRhrF2t=q-pOb5pAmfzg@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <CAJaTeTpeNDdV4g+n4cE0GVe8uBxgjUdRhrF2t=q-pOb5pAmfzg@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 07:49, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/net/e1000.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/e1000.h
> >
> > #define E1000_WRITE_FLUSH(a) \
> > - do { uint32_t x = E1000_READ_REG(a, STATUS); } while (0)
> > + E1000_READ_REG(a, STATUS)
>
> i think we want the do{}while as this is a write command and we don't
> want people accidentally trying to check the return value
I don't see that this is a write command. I'm seeing only reading of
the status register here.
And I don't understand the "accidentally trying to check the return
value" argument either. Why would one do that - and if one does
(probably after checking the implementation), what would be wrong
about it?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
My play was a complete success. The audience was a failure.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-28 20:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-18 21:05 [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/5] HWW-1U-1A: e1000 driver cleanups and new features Kyle Moffett
2011-10-18 21:05 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/5] e1000: Clean up handling of dual-port NICs and support 82571 Kyle Moffett
2011-10-27 22:34 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-10-18 21:05 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] e1000: Restructure and streamline PCI device probing Kyle Moffett
2011-10-27 22:34 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-10-18 21:05 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/5] e1000: Rewrite EEPROM checksum error to give more information Kyle Moffett
2011-10-27 22:35 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-10-18 21:05 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 4/5] e1000: Export core EEPROM access functions for SPI support Kyle Moffett
2011-10-27 22:35 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-11-01 15:22 ` Tabi Timur-B04825
2011-11-01 15:30 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-10-18 21:05 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 5/5] e1000: Allow direct access to the E1000 SPI EEPROM device Kyle Moffett
2011-10-27 22:37 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-10-28 4:25 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/5] HWW-1U-1A: e1000 driver cleanups and new features Wolfgang Denk
2011-10-28 5:49 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH] e1000: fix bugs from recent commits Wolfgang Denk
2011-10-28 6:28 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-10-28 20:19 ` Wolfgang Denk [this message]
2011-10-28 23:30 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-10-29 19:32 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-10-28 17:24 ` Moffett, Kyle D
2011-10-28 20:40 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-10-28 21:06 ` Marek Vasut
2011-10-29 19:33 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] " Wolfgang Denk
2011-10-30 15:43 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-10-31 15:14 ` Moffett, Kyle D
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111028201950.191081809855@gemini.denx.de \
--to=wd@denx.de \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.