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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox