[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111009060644.GN18470@longonot.mountain>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 09:06:44 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: wei_wang@...lsil.com.cn
Cc: gregkh@...e.de, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging:rts_pstor:Fix SDIO issue
Adding the check for if (sd_check_err_code(chip, SD_NO_CARD)) is
good, but introducing the new "reset_pass" variable is wrong.
I don't think you are updating the new variable consistently on
all paths. For example, if it's a 0x5209 chip and the code is like
this:
retval = sd_change_bank_voltage(chip, SD_IO_3V3);
if (retval != STATUS_SUCCESS) {
TRACE_RET(chip, STATUS_FAIL);
}
In the old system that was considered a successful reset, but under
your new system we don't update "reset_pass" here so we pass this
test and then we immediately return STATUS_FAIL because reset_pass
isn't set. If that's what you intended then just write it like that.
retval = sd_change_bank_voltage(chip, SD_IO_3V3);
TRACE_RET(chip, STATUS_FAIL);
So could you write it again but just set retval = STATUS_FAIL; for
the new failure pathes. Or better yet, just return STATUS_FAIL
directly. So this code would be:
> + if (retval == STATUS_SUCCESS)
> + reset_pass = 1;
if (retval != STATUS_SUCCESS)
TRACE_RET(chip, retval);
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists