From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:26:56 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v8 4/4] Add USB support for Efika
In-Reply-To: <CAB+7RbFNTdaw9N98FnhMzDXxDeys_p3Vu9Mwnk06a+uJoCJYpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1317222327-18367-1-git-send-email-fermata7@gmail.com>
	<1317223213.3682.2.camel@konomi>
	<CAB+7RbFNTdaw9N98FnhMzDXxDeys_p3Vu9Mwnk06a+uJoCJYpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201109282026.56876.marek.vasut@gmail.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

On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 08:12:08 PM Jana Rapava wrote:
> 2011/9/28 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut.n900@gmail.com>
> 
> > > +    if (!timeout)
> > > +        return -1;
> > > +    else
> > > +        return tmp;
> > > +}
> > 
> > Won't 'return !timeout;' be enough?
> > 
> > > +    tmp = ulpi_wait(ehci, ULPI_RWRUN);
> > 
> > +    if (tmp == -1) {
> > +        printf("ULPI read timed out\n");
> > +        return 0;
> > +    }
> > +    return ulpi_read_mask(tmp);
> > +}
> 
> Here in ulpi_read() I need to store and return value which was read in
> ulpi_wait(). What is the proper way to do this, If ulpi_wait() should
> return !timeout ?

You can read again ... it's more systematic. Anyway ... use the approach below, 
it seems better.

> 
> > Also, can you change 'ulpi_bit' to 'ulpi_mask'? That seems more
> > appropriate.
> > 
> > Maybe this can be even changed to ulpi_wait(ehci, value_to_be_written,
> > bit_to_be_polled), then you won't need those writel()s before every write
> > to ulpi anymore.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > cheers