[U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd_bootm.c: Correct check/return for unsupported sub-command

With the do_bootm_states re-organization, we have the call to any potential sub-commands in a single spot. If one fails, we can then stop right there and return to the caller. Prior to these calls we have already ensured that ret is zero so we will not be returning this error for some other case.
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com --- common/cmd_bootm.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/cmd_bootm.c b/common/cmd_bootm.c index 02a5013..a36e019 100644 --- a/common/cmd_bootm.c +++ b/common/cmd_bootm.c @@ -669,6 +669,13 @@ static int do_bootm_states(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, if (!ret && (states & BOOTM_STATE_OS_PREP)) ret = boot_fn(BOOTM_STATE_OS_PREP, argc, argv, images);
+ /* Check for unsupported subcommand. */ + if (ret) { + puts("subcommand not supported\n"); + return ret; + } + + #ifdef CONFIG_TRACE /* Pretend to run the OS, then run a user command */ if (!ret && (states & BOOTM_STATE_OS_FAKE_GO)) { @@ -699,8 +706,6 @@ err: bootstage_error(BOOTSTAGE_ID_DECOMP_UNIMPL); else if (ret == BOOTM_ERR_RESET) do_reset(cmdtp, flag, argc, argv); - else - puts("subcommand not supported\n");
return ret; }

On 07/01/2013 03:09 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
With the do_bootm_states re-organization, we have the call to any potential sub-commands in a single spot. If one fails, we can then stop right there and return to the caller. Prior to these calls we have already ensured that ret is zero so we will not be returning this error for some other case.
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com
Tested-by: Andreas Bießmann andreas.devel@googlemail.com
on avr32
common/cmd_bootm.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:05:22PM +0200, Andreas Bie?mann wrote:
On 07/01/2013 03:09 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
With the do_bootm_states re-organization, we have the call to any potential sub-commands in a single spot. If one fails, we can then stop right there and return to the caller. Prior to these calls we have already ensured that ret is zero so we will not be returning this error for some other case.
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com
Tested-by: Andreas Bie?mann andreas.devel@googlemail.com
Applied to u-boot/master.

On 07/03/2013 02:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:05:22PM +0200, Andreas Bie?mann wrote:
On 07/01/2013 03:09 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
With the do_bootm_states re-organization, we have the call to any potential sub-commands in a single spot. If one fails, we can then stop right there and return to the caller. Prior to these calls we have already ensured that ret is zero so we will not be returning this error for some other case.
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com
Tested-by: Andreas Bie?mann andreas.devel@googlemail.com
Applied to u-boot/master.
couldn't find it, missing push?
Regards,
Andreas Bießmann

On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 03:24:10PM +0200, Andreas Bie?mann wrote:
On 07/03/2013 02:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:05:22PM +0200, Andreas Bie?mann wrote:
On 07/01/2013 03:09 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
With the do_bootm_states re-organization, we have the call to any potential sub-commands in a single spot. If one fails, we can then stop right there and return to the caller. Prior to these calls we have already ensured that ret is zero so we will not be returning this error for some other case.
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com
Tested-by: Andreas Bie?mann andreas.devel@googlemail.com
Applied to u-boot/master.
couldn't find it, missing push?
Fixed, thanks!
participants (2)
-
Andreas Bießmann
-
Tom Rini