[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc8xxx: improve LAW error messages when setting up DDR

[Peter Tyser]

Hi Paul,

> diff --git a/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/util.c b/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/util.c
> index 4451989..d0f61a8 100644
> --- a/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/util.c
> +++ b/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/util.c
> @@ -89,16 +89,16 @@ __fsl_ddr_set_lawbar(const common_timing_params_t *memctl_common_params,
>  			? LAW_TRGT_IF_DDR_INTRLV : LAW_TRGT_IF_DDR_1;
>  
>  		if (set_ddr_laws(base, size, lawbar1_target_id) < 0) {
> -			printf("ERROR\n");
> +			printf("set_lawbar: ERROR (%d)\n", memctl_interleaved);
>  			return ;
>  		}
>  	} else if (ctrl_num == 1) {
>  		if (set_ddr_laws(base, size, LAW_TRGT_IF_DDR_2) < 0) {
> -			printf("ERROR\n");
> +			printf("set_lawbar: ERROR (ctrl #2)\n");

This error would print out #2 for the 2nd controller...

>  			return ;
>  		}
>  	} else {
> -		printf("unexpected controller number %u in %s\n",
> +		printf("set_lawbar: unexpected controller number %u in %s\n",
>  			ctrl_num, __FUNCTION__);

But this error would print out 2 for the 3rd controller.  Either
convention is going to be confusing, but it'd be nice if they were at
least consistent.

__func__ is preferred over __FUNCTION__, maybe you could update it also?

Wouldn't this message look at bit funny with the title being
"set_lawbar:" but then also including the full "__fsl_ddr_set_lawbar" in
the same message?  And neither of the other errors include the printing
of __func__?  Hopefully I'll never see the errors, so proceed as you see
fit:)

Best,
Peter