[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/5] bootm: Handle errors consistently

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 01:21:09PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 12:52:03PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 01:17:07PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A recent bootm fix left the error path incomplete. Reinstate
> this so
> > > that
> > > > > > failures in bootm stages are handled properly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > > - Correct checking in the no-error case
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, this conflicts with the change I posted (and pushed later than
> I
> > > > > thought I had).  Can you confirm the code is good in mainline now?
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's close, but I think it still needs this near the end
> > > > of do_bootm_states(), something like:
> > > >
> > > >  else if (ret == BOOTM_ERR_RESET) do_reset(cmdtp, flag, argc, argv);
> +
> > > else
> > > > if (ret) + puts("subcommand not supported\n"); return ret;
> > > >
> > > > If you agree, I can prepare a patch as part of the bootz update.
> > >
> > > How do we get there in the code?  When we do any subcalls is where
> we've
> > > got that puts already.  Failures from that point on are either the OS
> > > bootm part failed (and return is > 0) or one of the BOOTM_ERR codes.
>  Or
> > > did I miss a case still?
> > >
> >
> > I think this is when the boot_os function returns an error. At least the
> > old code had quite a lot of printf()s for that case.
>
> We had a printf per subcommand before, and just a single one now.  We
> didn't say the 'go' subcommand failed however, just what the
> function happened to print out.
>

Yes that looks right to me. But I believe that the GO command is not
supposed to return, so it might be harmless to put the message there in all
cases. If not, we can add a special case for GO.

Regards,
Simon