Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:29:56AM +0100, Juergen Beisert wrote: > > Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/dma/apbh_dma.c | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/apbh_dma.c b/drivers/dma/apbh_dma.c > > > index 363878f..d30b8fb 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/dma/apbh_dma.c > > > +++ b/drivers/dma/apbh_dma.c > > > @@ -555,7 +555,9 @@ int mxs_dma_init(void) > > > int ret, channel; > > > u32 val, reg; > > > > > > - mxs_reset_block(apbh_regs, 0); > > > + ret = mxs_reset_block(apbh_regs, 0); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > > In this case the user faces a "MXS: Timeout resetting block via register > > ...". Do you think this message is helpful to give the user a pointer > > *where* the failure happens? > > Yes, since it points to the IP core which was used here. Which again, > makes clear which driver was trying to reset the IP core. You mean the reported register offset points to the corresponding IP core? Just my 2cents: a generic routine should report a failure to the caller. And the caller should output a valuable failure message which makes clear what the caller had tried to do by calling the generic routine. I think such a message would be more helpful. Your generic message is for developers only. But also Barebox has more users than developers. jbe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Juergen Beisert | Linux Solutions for Science and Industry | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
