From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:14:28 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] mvsata_ide: adjust port init sequence In-Reply-To: <20100907190016.754C2153798@gemini.denx.de> References: <1283814151-8440-1-git-send-email-albert.aribaud@free.fr> <4C8620AE.2000605@free.fr> <20100907140630.4E2A8B715F@gemini.denx.de> <4C867741.6060906@free.fr> <20100907190016.754C2153798@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <4C86AB34.7090608@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Le 07/09/2010 21:00, Wolfgang Denk a ?crit : > Dear Albert ARIBAUD, > > In message<4C867741.6060906@free.fr> you wrote: >> >> I'm a bit lost at the logic of this last sentence. If errors are not >> always represented as negative return values, and especially so in >> U-boot, then what is the rationale for supporting a request for >> specifically negative error return values, rather than positive, here? > > Even though ther eis lots of code that could need improvement, we > should not take such bad examples, but rather try to apply standard > techniques instead. > >> Not that I mind much -- as I said, ide_init() does not mind, and that's >> my reference -- and I'll happily put negative error codes in V3, but I >> like to understand why people want things. > > It's just a pretty common thing to do, and instead of doing the same > thing in many different ways it makes some sense to use a standard > way. Understood. Amicalement, -- Albert.