Hi Heiko,
Hello Lukasz,
Am 10.04.2014 16:31, schrieb Lukasz Majewski:
Hi Heiko,
Hello Lukasz,
Am 10.04.2014 12:08, schrieb Lukasz Majewski:
Hi Pantelis,
Hi Marek,
On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 at 07:08:06 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: > add a possibility to add a medium specific polltimeout > function. So it is possible to define different > poll timeouts. > > Used on nand medium, for setting the DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT > only on nand ubi partitions, which is currently the only > usecase. > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocherhs@denx.de > Cc: Lukasz Majewskil.majewski@samsung.com > Cc: Kyungmin Parkkyungmin.park@samsung.com > Cc: Marek Vasutmarex@denx.de > Cc: Pantelis Antonioupanto@antoniou-consulting.com
[...]
> @@ -174,6 +174,17 @@ static void dnload_request_flush(struct > usb_ep *ep, struct usb_request *req) req->length, > f_dfu->blk_seq_num); } > > +static void dfu_set_poll_timeout_manifest(struct dfu_status > *dstat, > + struct f_dfu *f_dfu) > +{ > + struct dfu_entity *dfu = > dfu_get_entity(f_dfu->altsetting); + > + if (dfu->poll_timeout) > + dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat, > dfu->poll_timeout(dfu)); > + else > + dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat, > DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT); +}
Don't you think it'd be better (yet more intrusive) to have all the DFU users have default implementation of dfu->poll_timeout() ? Then you'd be able to avoid this if and even get rid of this dfu_set_poll_timeout_manifest() function.
Could work, but why not a simple accessor like this:
static inline unsigned int dfu_get_poll_timeout(struct dfu_entity *dfu) {
return dfu->poll_timeout ? dfu->poll_timeout(dfu); DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT); }
and dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat, dfu_get_poll_timeout(dfu));
You even get the benefit of have a method to read the timeout value if we ever needed sometime in the future.
Seems reasonable for me: +1
Yep, good idea, I change this.
Some comment:
Guys, please be consistent with CCing people. I didn't receive this thread. Also this original reply from Pantelis was not CCed to Heiko.
Hmm.. I lloked in my received EMails, and I see you always on cc ... ?
I wasn't added to CC in the original patch 2/2.
I was only added to Cc below the Signed-of-by, but then I was missing in the CC of the message itself.
Yes, I see ... Hmm.. I sent patches always with git send-mail ...
Header I got:
From - Thu Apr 10 07:12:33 2014 X-Account-Key: account2 X-UIDL: 1130185039.262989 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-Mozilla-Keys: Return-Path: hs@denx.de Received: from murder ([192.168.8.180]) by backend11 (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:08:28 +0200 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Received: from mail.m-online.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by frontend1.mail.m-online.net (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:08:27 +0200 [...] Received: from pollux.denx.de (pollux [192.168.1.1]) by mail.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0851342155; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:08:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: by pollux.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 515) id 98C9BF6E; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:08:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Heiko Schocher hs@denx.de To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: Heiko Schocher hs@denx.de, Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com, Kyungmin Park kyungmin.park@samsung.com, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de, Pantelis Antoniou panto@antoniou-consulting.com Subject: [PATCH 2/2] dfu, nand: add medium specific polltimeout function Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:08:06 +0200 Message-Id: 1397106486-1233-2-git-send-email-hs@denx.de X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.3.1 In-Reply-To: 1397106486-1233-1-git-send-email-hs@denx.de References: 1397106486-1233-1-git-send-email-hs@denx.de
There you are in the cc list ... but I see, in patchwork:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/337981/
(click on "Headers show") [...] Message-Id: 1397106486-1233-2-git-send-email-hs@denx.de X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.3.1 In-Reply-To: 1397106486-1233-1-git-send-email-hs@denx.de References: 1397106486-1233-1-git-send-email-hs@denx.de Cc: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de, Pantelis Antoniou panto@antoniou-consulting.com, Kyungmin Park kyungmin.park@samsung.com Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] dfu, nand: add medium specific polltimeout function
There you are missing ... ?
Yes. Here is the problem. When you reply to patch, then Cc from the commit message is not taken into account.
This is why I've asked for being consistent with CC list.
For this reason (also the cover letter apply to this), when I send patches with git-send-email, I add all concerned people with explicit --cc/--to option.
bye, Heiko