Hi Michal,
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 4.4.2017 19:53, Joe Hershberger wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
>>>
>>> The .read_rom_hwaddr net_ops hook does not check the return value, which
>>>
On 4.4.2017 19:53, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
>>
>> The .read_rom_hwaddr net_ops hook does not check the return value, which
>> is why it was never caught that we are currently returning 0 if the
>> read_rom_hwaddr function
Not yet, i rebased against u-boot-net/master. As it is it is a bug however so
we should just put the fix in for now.
On April 5, 2017 8:29:22 AM CEST, Michal Simek wrote:
>On 3.4.2017 16:18, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
>> The .read_rom_hwaddr net_ops hook does not check the
On 3.4.2017 16:18, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> The .read_rom_hwaddr net_ops hook does not check the return value, which
> is why it was never caught that we are currently returning 0 if the
> read_rom_hwaddr function return -ENOSYS and -ENOSYS otherwise.
>
> In this case we can simplify this by
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
>
> The .read_rom_hwaddr net_ops hook does not check the return value, which
> is why it was never caught that we are currently returning 0 if the
> read_rom_hwaddr function return -ENOSYS and -ENOSYS otherwise.
>
> In
The .read_rom_hwaddr net_ops hook does not check the return value, which
is why it was never caught that we are currently returning 0 if the
read_rom_hwaddr function return -ENOSYS and -ENOSYS otherwise.
In this case we can simplify this by just returning the result of the
function.
6 matches
Mail list logo