[U-Boot] [PATCH] smc91xx_eeprom: Correct chip detection check.

[U-Boot] [PATCH] smc91xx_eeprom: Correct chip detection check.

[Juergen Kilb]

From: Juergen Kilb <j.jilb@phytec.de>

The smc911x_detect function in /net/driver/net/smc911x.c
returns a 0 if everything was ok (a chip was found) and -1 else.
In the standalone example 'smc911x_eeprom' the return value
of smc911x_detect is interpreted in a different way
(0 for error, !0 as OK).
This leads to the error that the chip will not be detected.

Signed-of-by: Juergen Kilb <j.kilb@phytec.de>
---

 examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c b/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c
index 104047f..cb3c131 100644
--- a/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c
+++ b/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c
@@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ static void dump_eeprom(struct eth_device *dev)
 static int smc911x_init(struct eth_device *dev)
 {
 	/* See if there is anything there */
-	if (!smc911x_detect_chip(dev))
+	if (smc911x_detect_chip(dev))
 		return 1;
 
 	smc911x_reset(dev);

[U-Boot] [PATCH] smc91xx_eeprom: Correct chip detection check.

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Juergen Kilb wrote:
> The smc911x_detect function in /net/driver/net/smc911x.c
> returns a 0 if everything was ok (a chip was found) and -1 else.
> In the standalone example 'smc911x_eeprom' the return value
> of smc911x_detect is interpreted in a different way
> (0 for error, !0 as OK).
> This leads to the error that the chip will not be detected.

Acked-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
-mike

[U-Boot] [PATCH] smc91xx_eeprom: Correct chip detection check.

[Ben Warren]

Hi Juergen,

On 6/12/2010 12:22 PM, Juergen Kilb wrote:
> From: Juergen Kilb<j.jilb@phytec.de>
>
> The smc911x_detect function in /net/driver/net/smc911x.c
> returns a 0 if everything was ok (a chip was found) and -1 else.
> In the standalone example 'smc911x_eeprom' the return value
> of smc911x_detect is interpreted in a different way
> (0 for error, !0 as OK).
> This leads to the error that the chip will not be detected.
>
> Signed-of-by: Juergen Kilb<j.kilb@phytec.de>
> ---
>
>   examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c |    2 +-
>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c b/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c
> index 104047f..cb3c131 100644
> --- a/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c
> +++ b/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c
> @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ static void dump_eeprom(struct eth_device *dev)
>   static int smc911x_init(struct eth_device *dev)
>   {
>   	/* See if there is anything there */
> -	if (!smc911x_detect_chip(dev))
> +	if (smc911x_detect_chip(dev))
>   		return 1;
>
>   	smc911x_reset(dev);
>
>    
Applied to net/next.

regards,
Ben

[U-Boot] [PATCH] smc91xx_eeprom: Correct chip detection check.

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday, June 12, 2010 15:22:01 Juergen Kilb wrote:
> Signed-of-by: Juergen Kilb <j.kilb@phytec.de>

should be "off", not "of".  you'll have to fix the commit in your net/next 
tree too Ben ...
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20100709/9dd9a69b/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot] [PATCH] smc91xx_eeprom: Correct chip detection check.

[Ben Warren]

  On 7/9/2010 3:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday, June 12, 2010 15:22:01 Juergen Kilb wrote:
>> Signed-of-by: Juergen Kilb<j.kilb@phytec.de>
> should be "off", not "of".  you'll have to fix the commit in your net/next
> tree too Ben ...
> -mike
thanks for pointing this out.  I'll take care of it this W/E

regards,
Ben