From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:01:36 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/7] usb: ehci: Move interrupt packet length
	check to create_int_queue
In-Reply-To: <CAOf5uwk_FHCYExq3iOOeNTzLw33oJL9qkmCTDihN682h_ZgU+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1411225272-13793-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com>
	<201409212136.48894.marex@denx.de>
	<CAOf5uwk_FHCYExq3iOOeNTzLw33oJL9qkmCTDihN682h_ZgU+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201409212201.36240.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

On Sunday, September 21, 2014 at 10:00:24 PM, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
> Hi Marek
> 
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 21, 2014 at 07:53:35 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> Hi,
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> >> >> -       if (length > usb_maxpacket(dev, pipe)) {
> >> >> -               printf("%s: Interrupt transfers requiring several "
> >> >> -                       "transactions are not supported.\n",
> >> >> __func__); -               return -1;
> >> >> -       }
> >> >> -
> >> >> 
> >> >>         queue = create_int_queue(dev, pipe, 1, length, buffer);
> >> >> 
> >> >> +       if (!queue)
> >> >> +               return -1;
> >> > 
> >> > Can you return a more consistent error code?
> >> 
> >> I'm just moving code around, and returning the same error code as
> >> before. Surely changing the error code belongs in another patch ?
> > 
> > Yes, full ACK. This is exactly a prime examply where squashing two fixes
> > into one patch would break bisectability absolutely perfectly.
> 
> Agree on separated patch, I have just ask if Hans can do in the
> patches queue. Marek, thanks for the lesson. Anyway seems that in USB
> part we have already several -1 return.

You know how it goes, patches are welcome ;-)

Best regards,
Marek Vasut