[U-Boot-Users] What if eth_init() fails?

[Detlev Zundel <dzu@denx.de>]

Hi,

>> --- u-boot-1.2.0_orig/net/net.c	2007-01-07 04:43:11.000000000 +0530
>> +++ u-boot-1.2.0/net/net.c	2007-11-14 18:03:03.000000000 +0530
>> @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_NET_MULTI
>>  	eth_set_current();
>>  #endif
>> -	if (eth_init(bd) < 0) {
>> +	if (eth_init(bd) > 0) {
>>  		eth_halt();
>>  		return(-1);
>>  	}
>
> Secondly and more important, did you test this?  I'd say your test is
> the wrong way round, i.e. eth_init returns true in the C sense (!=0)
> if it was able to initialize an interface.  (This also chimes with the
> naming of the function by the way).  So I'd propose to go for
> "!eth_init(..)".

Thinking about this somemore, I am now convinced that the problem
should not be fixed at the caller but in eth_init.  Testing for <0 is
a pretty idiomatic test for errors, so we should rather adjust
eth_init to fit this idiom than spreading "aberrant" behaviour.

Cheers
  Detlev

-- 
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
             -- Pablo Picasso
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich,  Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: dzu@denx.de