From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:13:12 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] i2c: mxs_i2c: Squash endless loop
In-Reply-To: <527790A5.3010707@denx.de>
References: <1383413009-4912-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de>
	<52778D0A.5010401@denx.de> <527790A5.3010707@denx.de>
Message-ID: <201311041413.12908.marex@denx.de>
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

Hi Heiko,

> Hello Stefano, Marek,
> 
> Am 04.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Stefano Babic:
> > Hi Marek,
> > 
> > On 04/11/2013 12:50, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> Hi Stefano,
> >> 
> >>> Hi Marek,
> >>> 
> >>> On 02/11/2013 18:23, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>>> +			if (!timeout) {
> >>>> +				debug("MXS I2C: Failed receiving data!
\n");
> >>>> +				return -EINVAL;
> >>>> +			}
> >>>> +
> >>> 
> >>> This is a real error and not a debug information. IMHO it should be
> >>> better to print the error unconditionally with puts/printf, reporting
> >>> that the timer elapsed.
> >> 
> >> Returning -EINVAL will make the i2c stack trigger an output, so having
> >> it duplicated here is pointless I believe.
> > 
> > Agree on that. But then, should we not return -ETIMEDOUT (-110) ? We
> 
> Yes, that should be -ETIMEDOUT

Full ACK.

> > should print the error code in the i2c stack (do_i2c_read) instead of
> > checking only if the return value is not null, as we do now.
> 
> Yep, printing in do_i2c_read()  the error code would be nice. Patches
> are welcome :-)

OK, shall I also print out an error message then?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut