[PATCH 3/3] doc: seama: Reword return value section

[Quentin Schulz]

On 10/22/25 3:51 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 11:33:30AM +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> On 10/21/25 10:25 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> With the addition of general text about how the return value is handled,
>>> reference that while retaining the additional information about setting
>>> $seama_image_size
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
>>> ---
>>> Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>>> ---
>>>    doc/usage/cmd/seama.rst | 7 ++-----
>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/doc/usage/cmd/seama.rst b/doc/usage/cmd/seama.rst
>>> index 17fd559f4856..a6b00f32902e 100644
>>> --- a/doc/usage/cmd/seama.rst
>>> +++ b/doc/usage/cmd/seama.rst
>>> @@ -56,8 +56,5 @@ The command is available if CONFIG_CMD_SEAMA=y.
>>>    Return value
>>>    ------------
>>> -The return value $? is set 0 (true) if the loading is succefull, and
>>> -is set to 1 (false) in case of error.
>>> -
>>> -The environment variable $seama_image_size is set to the size of the
>>> -loaded SEAMA image.
>>> +Along with the general rules for setting $?, the environment variable
>>> +$seama_image_size is set to the size of the loaded SEAMA image.
>>
>> Maybe add "as reported by the SEAMA image header" as that seems to be what
>> is reported in this variable reading cmd/seama.c?
>>
>> Also wondering if this shouldn't be in a separate section like "Side
>> effects" since it isn't really the return value. I'm thinking
>> doc/usage/cmd/fatload.rst (and a few others) could benefit from something
>> like that to explain filesize env variable is set automatically.
> 
> Perhaps, but I would see all of that as future clean-ups, I'm just
> trying to get (most) everything consistent first.
> 
> I say most because on reflection, I think a number of commands that say
> they only return 0 are just not mentioning invalid syntax, but
> verifying that is a more involved process (I did check a few commands
> that say the only ever return 0 and saw the normal CMD_RET_USAGE checks,
> so removed their incorrect text).
> 

Fair, I sometimes forget in the review that not everything part of the 
feedback needs to be part of this patch or series.

Considering it does match the current wording and just aligns with the 
rest of the commands, this is fine.

The seama command seems to be handling the usage syntax error and 
"normal" errors as reported in patch 1, so:

Reviewed-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz at cherry.de>

Thanks!
Quentin