[U-Boot] [PATCH v3] spi: Add error checking for invalid bus widths

[Jagan Teki]

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Jagan,
>
> On 1 December 2016 at 05:45, Jagan Teki <jagan at openedev.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>>> At present an invalid bus width prints a message but does not return an
>>> error. This is the opposite of the correct behaviour. Adjust it to avoid
>>> code bloat in the common case, and avoid hard-to-debug failure in the
>>> uncommon case.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v3:
>>> - Display an error in U-Boot proper, but then continue
>>> - Drop patches previously applied
>>>
>>>  drivers/spi/spi-uclass.c | 4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-uclass.c b/drivers/spi/spi-uclass.c
>>> index f59a701..1ab5b75 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-uclass.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-uclass.c
>>> @@ -418,7 +418,7 @@ int spi_slave_ofdata_to_platdata(const void *blob, int node,
>>>                 mode |= SPI_TX_QUAD;
>>>                 break;
>>>         default:
>>> -               error("spi-tx-bus-width %d not supported\n", value);
>>> +               warn_non_spl("spi-tx-bus-width %d not supported\n", value);
>>
>> I thought in SPL it will reverse like debug and return by error, make sense?
>
> Sorry I don't understand this comment. The intent here is to:
>
> - do nothing in SPL
> - warn in U-Boot proper with printf()
>
> Are you saying that it should use debug() in SPL?

I though SPL should return error, unlike U-Boot. So-that SPL should
use proper bus-width that will eventually fix the dt.

thanks!
-- 
Jagan Teki
Free Software Engineer | www.openedev.com
U-Boot, Linux | Upstream Maintainer
Hyderabad, India.