[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/4] exynos: Fix passing of errors in exynos_mmc_init()

[Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>]

Hi.

On 09/23/2015 06:39 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
> 
>> exynos_mmc_init() always returns zero, so for the caller
>> it looks like it never fails.
>>
>> Correct this by returning the error code of process_nodes().
>> For process_nodes() do something similar and return early
>> when do_sdhci_init() fails.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@math.uni-bielefeld.de>
>> ---
>>  drivers/mmc/s5p_sdhci.c | 10 ++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/s5p_sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/s5p_sdhci.c
>> index e9c43a9..bc2102a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/s5p_sdhci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/s5p_sdhci.c
>> @@ -187,7 +187,11 @@ static int process_nodes(const void *blob, int
>> node_list[], int count) printf("%s: failed to decode dev
>> %d\n",	__func__, i); return -1;
>>  		}
>> -		do_sdhci_init(host);
>> +
>> +		if (do_sdhci_init(host)) {
>> +			printf("%s: failed to initialize dev %d\n",
>> __func__, i);
>> +			return -2;
> 
> IMHO, it would be better to write this code as follows:
> 
> ret = do_sdhci_init(host);
> if (ret) {
> 
> 	printf();
> 	return ret;
> }

I think it should be replaced to "continue;", not "return ret;"
If returned the fail, then next host can't initialize.(if there is next host..)
So maybe, it didn't use "return ret".

Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung

> 	
> In the above code you read the exact return code from do_sdhci_init()
> and then you pass it to upper layer.
> 
> Returning only -2 is far less informational.
> 
>> +		}
>>  	}
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>> @@ -201,8 +205,6 @@ int exynos_mmc_init(const void *blob)
>>  			COMPAT_SAMSUNG_EXYNOS_MMC, node_list,
>>  			SDHCI_MAX_HOSTS);
>>  
>> -	process_nodes(blob, node_list, count);
>> -
>> -	return 0;
>> +	return process_nodes(blob, node_list, count);
>>  }
>>  #endif
> 
> 
>