On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 17:09 -0600, Chin Liang See wrote:
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.
The standard error idiom in Linux and U-Boot is negative values for errors. That's why I asked if there was a reason for this, such as passing the value to something that expects status values as would be returned by hardware.
-Scott