[U-Boot] [PATCH V2] cmd_mmc.c: check mmc_init() during mmc dev

[Stephen Warren]

On 05/21/2014 07:41 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> On 05/22/2014 01:18 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 05/20/2014 11:40 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>>> Hi, Stephen.
>>>
>>> i didn't apply your patch. Which repository do you use?
>>
>> It's based on u-boot.git master branch. The latest u-boot-mmc.git master
>> branch is already included in that branch, and it looks like some
>> changes have been applied to cmd_mmc.c in u-boot/master that aren't in
>> u-boot-mmc/master.
> 
> I have pulled the latest u-boot.git, but it didn't apply this patch.
> If i missed something, let me know plz.

Ah, I guess I hadn't noticed there's an interaction (context changes)
with some other MMC-related patches that I sent:

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/346771/
[U-Boot,1/4] cmd_part: fix type in part command help text

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/346770/
[U-Boot,2/4] disk: support devices with HW partitions

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/346768/
[U-Boot,3/4] mmc: provide a select_hwpart implementation for get_device()

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/346769/
[U-Boot,4/4] cmd_mmc: use new mmc_select_hwpart() function

So, you can either apply those first, or use "git am -3" rather than
"git am", plus declare "int ret"; patch 4/4 above does that.

>>> Well, if you want to check, can be used "if (mmc_init(mmc))".
>>>
>>> And i'm not sure whether this code is really need or not.
>>
>> Why not? This code is required to solve the problem described in the
>> commit description:
> 
> I will try to reproduce the problem described in the commit-msg.
> Because, i didn't reproduce it, so i'm not sure. 

> But to control the return value, it's reasonable, right?

Yes, I think so.