From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:55:18 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] [v2] tsec: fix the return value for
 tsec_eth_init() and tsec_standard_init()
In-Reply-To: <201006071849.29511.vapier@gentoo.org>
References: <1275935487-2031-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com>
	<201006071849.29511.vapier@gentoo.org>
Message-ID: <4C0D78D6.2010707@freescale.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, June 07, 2010 14:31:27 Timur Tabi wrote:
>> In general, if an function initializes only one device, then it should
>> return a negative number if there's an error.  If it initializes more than
>> one device, then it should never return a negative number.  This is why
>> these functions now return an unsigned integer.
> 
> i dont think this is a good idea.  either the init funcs should all be 
> converted to unsigned int, or they should stay int.  doing it piecemeal leads 
> to confusion with zero upside.

I don't want to change all of the functions.  For most devices, there's no
way I can test them.

Just because pci_eth_int() is incorrect, that doesn't mean that I can't make
tsec_eth_init() correct.

> your fixes no way require these to be unsigned int funcs.

What's the point of making the return value a signed integer if it can never
be a negative number?  The reason I changed the type to unsigned int is to
make it very clear that it will never return an error code.