On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 17:04 -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 17:01 -0600, Chin Liang See wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 12:23 -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > > > On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 11:34 -0600, Chin Liang See wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 18:03 -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 14:51 -0600, Chin Liang See wrote: > > > > > > Why PASS/FAIL rather than normal "0 on success, negative error code > > > > > > on > > > > > error"? Why uint16_t? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixed by returning 0 when pass. Also changed uint16_t to uint32_t > > > > > > Why uint32_t and not int? Is that return value somewhere used in a > > > context that expects a NAND hardware status? > > > > > > > > > Nope, the return value is not used to compare against > 0 or < 0 > > Why not? >
We just check whether 0 or not as success will return 0. Thanks Chin Liang > -Scott > > > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
