Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:48:31AM +0100, Juergen Beisert wrote: > > 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? > > Yes, sure. Otherwise the error message would be useless :) > > > But also Barebox has more users than developers. > > There is nothing a user could do in this case except asking a developer > what could have happened? And that's the best option here. "MXS: Timeout resetting block via register <friesel>. Please ask the developer for a solution" :)) 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
