[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] nand/denali: Adding Denali NAND driver support

[Chin Liang See <clsee@altera.com>]

On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 17:11 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 17:09 -0600, Chin Liang See wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 17:04 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 17:01 -0600, Chin Liang See wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 12:23 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 11:34 -0600, Chin Liang See wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 18:03 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 14:51 -0600, Chin Liang See wrote:
> > > > > > > > Why PASS/FAIL rather than normal "0 on success, negative error code on
> > > > > > > error"?  Why uint16_t?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Fixed by returning 0 when pass. Also changed uint16_t to uint32_t
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why uint32_t and not int?  Is that return value somewhere used in a
> > > > > context that expects a NAND hardware status?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Nope, the return value is not used to compare against > 0 or < 0
> > > 
> > > Why not?
> > > 
> > 
> > We just check whether 0 or not as success will return 0.
> 
> The standard error idiom in Linux and U-Boot is negative values for
> errors.  That's why I asked if there was a reason for this, such as
> passing the value to something that expects status values as would be
> returned by hardware.
> 

Yup, there are function which return the register value. From there,
there will be a check for whether certain bit is set or not.

Thanks
Chin Liang


> -Scott
> 
> 
>