[U-Boot] [PATCH fix for v2014.10 4/5] stdio: Add force parameter to stdio_deregister

Simon Glass
2014-10-09T17:03:42Z

Hi Marek,

On 9 October 2014 10:27, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 06:14:11 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Marek,
>>
>> On 9 October 2014 09:12, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 08:18:14 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > On 20 September 2014 08:54, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > > In some cases we really want to move forward with a deregister, add a
>> > > > force parameter to allow this, and replace the dev with a nulldev in
>> > > > this case.
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > > > diff --git a/drivers/serial/serial-uclass.c
>> > > > b/drivers/serial/serial-uclass.c index d04104e..61cbdc6 100644
>> > > > --- a/drivers/serial/serial-uclass.c
>> > > > +++ b/drivers/serial/serial-uclass.c
>> > > > @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ static int serial_pre_remove(struct udevice *dev)
>> > > >
>> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SYS_STDIO_DEREGISTER
>> > > >
>> > > > struct serial_dev_priv *upriv = dev->uclass_priv;
>> > > >
>> > > > - if (stdio_deregister_dev(upriv->sdev))
>> > > > + if (stdio_deregister_dev(upriv->sdev), 0)
>> > >
>> > > That bracket seems to be in a strange place.
>> >
>> > Good find, thanks! I have two questions:
>> > 1) How come I did not notice this and my build didn't spit?
>>
>> If you have CONFIG_SYS_STDIO_DEREGISTER, CONFIG_DM and
>> CONFIG_DM_SERIAL set then I'm not sure. I made sure that sandbox has
>> all of these but it might be the only board.
>
> I see, error on my end then. I will start building sandbox for the USB tree.
> Thank you for pointing this out! This also stresses my point that U-Boot project
> does need a proper CI (which we could have had thanks to Vadim, but we didn't
> persudate that, dang again).

What is a Cl? Do you mean his gerrit code review stuff?

>
> I think this CI stuff should be added to the agenda of the U-Boot minisummit
> discussion.
>
> Another point to the CI discussion could be that we could prepare a docker image
> with all the toolchains preinstalled, so one can run buildman easily in a well
> defined environment on his/her own.
>
> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut

Regards,
Simon