Hi Dan,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Sat, 17 Apr 2021
13:24:26 +0300:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:00:40PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 14 Apr 2021
> > 08:56:33 +0300:
> >
> > > We should return an error code if the timing mode is not acknowledged
> > > by the NAND chip.
> >
> > This truly is questionable (and I am not yet decided whether the answer
> > should be yes or no).
> >
> > Returning an error here would produce the entire boot sequence to fail,
> > even though the NAND chip would work in mode 0.
> >
> > Not returning an error would print the below warning (so the
> > user/developer is warned) and continue the boot with the slowest
> > timing interface.
> >
> > Honestly I would be more in favor of letting things as they are
> > because I don't think this may be considered as a buggy situation, but I
> > am open to discussion.
> >
>
> If we decided that the original code is correct then one way to silence
> the warning would be to do:
>
> if (tmode_param[0] != chip->best_interface_config->timings.mode) {
> pr_warn("timing mode %d not acknowledged by the NAND chip\n",
> chip->best_interface_config->timings.mode);
> ret = 0;
> goto err_reset_chip;
> }
>
> Setting "ret = 0;" right before the goto makes the code look more
> intentional to human readers as well.
Absolutely right. Let's got for it then.
Cheers,
Miquèl
