On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:18:00 +0200
Niklas Söderlund <[email protected]> wrote:
> @@ -491,7 +499,8 @@ int serprog_init(void)
> the programmer to tell us its limits, but if it doesn't, we
> will assume stuff, so it's in the programmers best interest
> to tell us. */
> - sp_docommand(S_CMD_S_BUSTYPE, 1, &bt, 0, NULL);
> + if (sp_docommand(S_CMD_S_BUSTYPE, 1, &bt, 0, NULL))
> + return 1;
> if (!sp_docommand(S_CMD_Q_WRNMAXLEN, 0, NULL, 3, rbuf)) {
> uint32_t v;
> v = ((unsigned int)(rbuf[0]) << 0);
> @@ -513,7 +522,8 @@ int serprog_init(void)
> msg_pdbg(MSGHEADER "Maximum read-n length is %d\n", v);
> }
> bt = serprog_buses_supported;
> - sp_docommand(S_CMD_S_BUSTYPE, 1, &bt, 0, NULL);
> + if (sp_docommand(S_CMD_S_BUSTYPE, 1, &bt, 0, NULL))
> + return 1;
> }
those calls actually change the behavior, because it was previously ok
if they fail (which is arguably correct), i decided to change them
anyway because the if before guards older correct implementations
against this anyway. i just moved the first one above the comment
because it would contradict it otherwise.
thanks!
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]>
and applied in r1557
--
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
_______________________________________________
flashrom mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
