Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] mvsata_ide: adjust port init sequence

2010-09-07 Thread Prafulla Wadaskar
-Original Message- From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.arib...@free.fr] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 4:53 PM To: Prafulla Wadaskar Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Prabhanjan Sarnaik; Ashish Karkare Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mvsata_ide: adjust port init sequence Le 07/09/2010

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] mvsata_ide: adjust port init sequence

2010-09-07 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Prafulla Wadaskar, In message f766e4f80769bd478052fb6533fa745d19a6879...@sc-vexch4.marvell.com you wrote: Negative always represents errors, whereas positive may represent some valid return state. He. This is _not_quite_ correct. Not in U-Boot, and not in genreal. [But your comment

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] mvsata_ide: adjust port init sequence

2010-09-07 Thread Albert ARIBAUD
Le 07/09/2010 16:06, Wolfgang Denk a écrit : Negative always represents errors, whereas positive may represent some valid return state. He. This is _not_quite_ correct. Not in U-Boot, and not in genreal. [But your comment asking for a negative return code is valid, of course.] I'm a bit

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] mvsata_ide: adjust port init sequence

2010-09-07 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Albert ARIBAUD, In message 4c867741.6060...@free.fr you wrote: I'm a bit lost at the logic of this last sentence. If errors are not always represented as negative return values, and especially so in U-boot, then what is the rationale for supporting a request for specifically

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] mvsata_ide: adjust port init sequence

2010-09-07 Thread Albert ARIBAUD
Le 07/09/2010 21:00, Wolfgang Denk a écrit : Dear Albert ARIBAUD, In message4c867741.6060...@free.fr you wrote: I'm a bit lost at the logic of this last sentence. If errors are not always represented as negative return values, and especially so in U-boot, then what is the rationale for

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] mvsata_ide: adjust port init sequence

2010-09-07 Thread Prafulla Wadaskar
-Original Message- From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Albert Aribaud Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 4:33 AM To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] mvsata_ide: adjust port init sequence

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] mvsata_ide: adjust port init sequence

2010-09-07 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
Hello. On 07-09-2010 3:02, Albert Aribaud wrote: mvsata_ide_initialize_port(): adjust init sequence (SStatus should be checked only after all writes to SControl) and return success/failure to ide_preinit(). Also, as some tests showed init durations in the hundreds of us, raise the time-out

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] mvsata_ide: adjust port init sequence

2010-09-07 Thread Albert ARIBAUD
Le 07/09/2010 08:42, Prafulla Wadaskar a écrit : diff --git a/drivers/block/mvsata_ide.c b/drivers/block/mvsata_ide.c @@ -125,15 +129,17 @@ int ide_preinit(void) +return 1; How about returning negative values for errors ? Function ide_preinit() is called from

[U-Boot] [PATCH V2] mvsata_ide: adjust port init sequence

2010-09-06 Thread Albert Aribaud
mvsata_ide_initialize_port(): adjust init sequence (SStatus should be checked only after all writes to SControl) and return success/failure to ide_preinit(). Also, as some tests showed init durations in the hundreds of us, raise the time-out to 10 ms to be on the safe side. Signed-off-by: Albert