From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:41:23 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc8xxx: improve LAW error messages
 when	setting up DDR
In-Reply-To: <1254875073.24487.16.camel@ptyser-laptop>
References: <1254872695-707-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
	<1254875073.24487.16.camel@ptyser-laptop>
Message-ID: <4ACC9A83.1020707@windriver.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

Peter Tyser wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
>> diff --git a/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/util.c b/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/util.c
>> index 4451989..d0f61a8 100644
>> --- a/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/util.c
>> +++ b/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/util.c
>> @@ -89,16 +89,16 @@ __fsl_ddr_set_lawbar(const common_timing_params_t *memctl_common_params,
>>  			? LAW_TRGT_IF_DDR_INTRLV : LAW_TRGT_IF_DDR_1;
>>  
>>  		if (set_ddr_laws(base, size, lawbar1_target_id) < 0) {
>> -			printf("ERROR\n");
>> +			printf("set_lawbar: ERROR (%d)\n", memctl_interleaved);
>>  			return ;
>>  		}
>>  	} else if (ctrl_num == 1) {
>>  		if (set_ddr_laws(base, size, LAW_TRGT_IF_DDR_2) < 0) {
>> -			printf("ERROR\n");
>> +			printf("set_lawbar: ERROR (ctrl #2)\n");
> 
> This error would print out #2 for the 2nd controller...

I was thinking 1 based counting for the messages presented to the
end user instead of the internal zero based, but...

> 
>>  			return ;
>>  		}
>>  	} else {
>> -		printf("unexpected controller number %u in %s\n",
>> +		printf("set_lawbar: unexpected controller number %u in %s\n",
>>  			ctrl_num, __FUNCTION__);
> 
> But this error would print out 2 for the 3rd controller.  Either

...as you point out, it then is inconsistent.  I'll fix that.

> convention is going to be confusing, but it'd be nice if they were at
> least consistent.
> 
> __func__ is preferred over __FUNCTION__, maybe you could update it also?
> 
> Wouldn't this message look at bit funny with the title being
> "set_lawbar:" but then also including the full "__fsl_ddr_set_lawbar" in
> the same message?  And neither of the other errors include the printing
> of __func__?  Hopefully I'll never see the errors, so proceed as you see
> fit:)

I never got to see this last one either, just the "ERROR" ones,
fortunately (?) but you make a good point - while in there, they
might as well all be standardized on func.  I'll do that too.

Thanks,
Paul.

> 
> Best,
> Peter
>