Hi Michal,
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 at 03:21, Michal Simek michal.simek@amd.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 3/22/24 11:22, Michal Simek wrote:
Hi Simon,
út 22. 8. 2023 v 5:18 odesílatel Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org mailto:sjg@chromium.org> napsal:
Move the failure message outside the loop, so it is easier to follow the code. Avoid swallowing the error code - just pass it along. Drop the initcall-list address from the output. This is confusing since we show two addresses. Really it is only the function address which is useful, since it can be looked up in the map, e.g. with: grep -A1 -B1 serial_init u-boot.map Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org <mailto:sjg@chromium.org>> --- lib/initcall.c | 12 +++++++----- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/initcall.c b/lib/initcall.c index 81c5d2450735..0f74cef32f85 100644 --- a/lib/initcall.c +++ b/lib/initcall.c @@ -46,11 +46,13 @@ int initcall_run_list(const init_fnc_t init_sequence[]) } ret = func(); - if (ret) { - printf("initcall sequence %p failed at call %p (err=%d)\n", - init_sequence, (char *)func - reloc_ofs, ret); - return -1; - } + } + + if (ret) { + printf("initcall failed at call %p (err=%dE)\n", + (char *)func - reloc_ofs, ret); + + return ret; } return 0; -- 2.42.0.rc1.204.g551eb34607-googI am debugging one issue and I get output like this. And I dig into it and find out that failures are not reported on the function which is causing it but on the next one. It is because of pointer is moved to next function;
This is what I see. initcall: 0000000008072de8, 0 initcall failed at call 000000000802b14c (err=-19)
And this is the problematic part. for (ptr = init_sequence; func = *ptr, !ret && func; ptr++) {
Fix should be of course to get that if(ret) code back but maybe you want to see different solution.
Any comment on this one?
Yes it was fixed by this, I believe, although no Fixes tag unfortunately: 7554388c1d1 initcall: break loop immediately on failure
Regards, Simon