From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:01:09 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] tsec: fix the return value for tsec_eth_init()
In-Reply-To: <254C866E-B460-47D7-8CCC-9C8F200189C1@freescale.com>
References: <1275684642-17608-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com>
	<254C866E-B460-47D7-8CCC-9C8F200189C1@freescale.com>
Message-ID: <4C096995.4090101@freescale.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

Andy Fleming wrote:

> The old way continued even if one of the tsecs failed to initialize.  Let's preserve the original behavior in that sense:
> 
> for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
> 	ret = tsec_initialize(bis, &tsecs[i]);
> 	if (ret >= 0)
> 		count++;
> }

This code has multiple levels to it.  board_eth_init() calls
tsec_eth_init(), pci_eth_init(), and maybe some other functions.
tsec_eth_init() calls tsec_initialize().  tsec_initialize() calls
init_phy().  Are we always going to ignore an error return code?  Why don't
we just eliminate the possibility of returning a negative number at all levels?