[U-Boot] [PATCH] smc91xx_eeprom: Correct chip detection check.
From: Juergen Kilb j.jilb@phytec.de
The smc911x_detect function in /net/driver/net/smc911x.c returns a 0 if everything was ok (a chip was found) and -1 else. In the standalone example 'smc911x_eeprom' the return value of smc911x_detect is interpreted in a different way (0 for error, !0 as OK). This leads to the error that the chip will not be detected.
Signed-of-by: Juergen Kilb j.kilb@phytec.de ---
examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c b/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c index 104047f..cb3c131 100644 --- a/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c +++ b/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ static void dump_eeprom(struct eth_device *dev) static int smc911x_init(struct eth_device *dev) { /* See if there is anything there */ - if (!smc911x_detect_chip(dev)) + if (smc911x_detect_chip(dev)) return 1;
smc911x_reset(dev);
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Juergen Kilb wrote:
The smc911x_detect function in /net/driver/net/smc911x.c returns a 0 if everything was ok (a chip was found) and -1 else. In the standalone example 'smc911x_eeprom' the return value of smc911x_detect is interpreted in a different way (0 for error, !0 as OK). This leads to the error that the chip will not be detected.
Acked-by: Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org -mike
Hi Juergen,
On 6/12/2010 12:22 PM, Juergen Kilb wrote:
From: Juergen Kilbj.jilb@phytec.de
The smc911x_detect function in /net/driver/net/smc911x.c returns a 0 if everything was ok (a chip was found) and -1 else. In the standalone example 'smc911x_eeprom' the return value of smc911x_detect is interpreted in a different way (0 for error, !0 as OK). This leads to the error that the chip will not be detected.
Signed-of-by: Juergen Kilbj.kilb@phytec.de
examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c b/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c index 104047f..cb3c131 100644 --- a/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c +++ b/examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ static void dump_eeprom(struct eth_device *dev) static int smc911x_init(struct eth_device *dev) { /* See if there is anything there */
- if (!smc911x_detect_chip(dev))
if (smc911x_detect_chip(dev)) return 1;
smc911x_reset(dev);
Applied to net/next.
regards, Ben
On Saturday, June 12, 2010 15:22:01 Juergen Kilb wrote:
Signed-of-by: Juergen Kilb j.kilb@phytec.de
should be "off", not "of". you'll have to fix the commit in your net/next tree too Ben ... -mike
On 7/9/2010 3:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday, June 12, 2010 15:22:01 Juergen Kilb wrote:
Signed-of-by: Juergen Kilbj.kilb@phytec.de
should be "off", not "of". you'll have to fix the commit in your net/next tree too Ben ... -mike
thanks for pointing this out. I'll take care of it this W/E
regards, Ben
participants (3)
-
Ben Warren -
Juergen Kilb -
Mike Frysinger