[PATCH] remove exit calls from sp_docommand

[Niklas Söderlund]

Adapted two callers to handle return codes instead of relying on the
exit call. Rest of upstream callers are prepared to handle return
values.

Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niso(a)kth.se>
---
 serprog.c |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/serprog.c b/serprog.c
index f03d332..aac10af 100644
--- a/serprog.c
+++ b/serprog.c
@@ -246,17 +246,23 @@ static int sp_docommand(uint8_t command, uint32_t parmlen,
 	unsigned char c;
 	if (sp_automatic_cmdcheck(command))
 		return 1;
-	if (write(sp_fd, &command, 1) != 1)
-		sp_die("Error: cannot write op code");
-	if (write(sp_fd, params, parmlen) != (parmlen))
-		sp_die("Error: cannot write parameters");
-	if (read(sp_fd, &c, 1) != 1)
-		sp_die("Error: cannot read from device");
+	if (write(sp_fd, &command, 1) != 1) {
+		msg_perr("Error: cannot write op code: %s\n", strerror(errno));
+		return 1;
+	}
+	if (write(sp_fd, params, parmlen) != (parmlen)) {
+		msg_perr("Error: cannot write parameters: %s\n", strerror(errno));
+		return 1;
+	}
+	if (read(sp_fd, &c, 1) != 1) {
+		msg_perr("Error: cannot read from device: %s\n", strerror(errno));
+		return 1;
+	}
 	if (c == S_NAK)
 		return 1;
 	if (c != S_ACK) {
-		msg_perr("Error: invalid response 0x%02X from device\n",c);
-		exit(1);
+		msg_perr("Error: invalid response 0x%02X from device\n", c);
+		return 1;
 	}
 	if (retlen) {
 		int rd_bytes = 0;
@@ -264,8 +270,10 @@ static int sp_docommand(uint8_t command, uint32_t parmlen,
 			int r;
 			r = read(sp_fd, retparms + rd_bytes,
 				 retlen - rd_bytes);
-			if (r <= 0)
-				sp_die("Error: cannot read return parameters");
+			if (r <= 0) {
+				msg_perr("Error: cannot read return parameters: %s\n", strerror(errno));
+				return 1;
+			}
 			rd_bytes += r;
 		} while (rd_bytes != retlen);
 	}
@@ -491,7 +499,8 @@ int serprog_init(void)
 		   the programmer to tell us its limits, but if it doesn't, we
 		   will assume stuff, so it's in the programmers best interest
 		   to tell us. */
-		sp_docommand(S_CMD_S_BUSTYPE, 1, &bt, 0, NULL);
+		if (sp_docommand(S_CMD_S_BUSTYPE, 1, &bt, 0, NULL))
+			return 1;
 		if (!sp_docommand(S_CMD_Q_WRNMAXLEN, 0, NULL, 3, rbuf)) {
 			uint32_t v;
 			v = ((unsigned int)(rbuf[0]) << 0);
@@ -513,7 +522,8 @@ int serprog_init(void)
 			msg_pdbg(MSGHEADER "Maximum read-n length is %d\n", v);
 		}
 		bt = serprog_buses_supported;
-		sp_docommand(S_CMD_S_BUSTYPE, 1, &bt, 0, NULL);
+		if (sp_docommand(S_CMD_S_BUSTYPE, 1, &bt, 0, NULL))
+			return 1;
 	}
 
 	if (serprog_buses_supported & BUS_NONSPI) {
-- 
1.7.10.3

[Stefan Tauner]

On Wed,  6 Jun 2012 10:18:00 +0200
Niklas Söderlund <niso(a)kth.se> wrote:

  @@ -491,7 +499,8 @@ int serprog_init(void)
  		   the programmer to tell us its limits, but if it doesn't, we
  		   will assume stuff, so it's in the programmers best interest
  		   to tell us. */
 -		sp_docommand(S_CMD_S_BUSTYPE, 1, &bt, 0, NULL);
 +		if (sp_docommand(S_CMD_S_BUSTYPE, 1, &bt, 0, NULL))
 +			return 1;
  		if (!sp_docommand(S_CMD_Q_WRNMAXLEN, 0, NULL, 3, rbuf)) {
  			uint32_t v;
  			v = ((unsigned int)(rbuf[0]) << 0);
 @@ -513,7 +522,8 @@ int serprog_init(void)
  			msg_pdbg(MSGHEADER "Maximum read-n length is %d\n", v);
  		}
  		bt = serprog_buses_supported;
 -		sp_docommand(S_CMD_S_BUSTYPE, 1, &bt, 0, NULL);
 +		if (sp_docommand(S_CMD_S_BUSTYPE, 1, &bt, 0, NULL))
 +			return 1;
  	}
those calls actually change the behavior, because it was previously ok
if they fail (which is arguably correct), i decided to change them
anyway because the if before guards older correct implementations
against this anyway. i just moved the first one above the comment
because it would contradict it otherwise.

thanks!
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner &lt;stefan.tauner(a)student.tuwien.ac.at&gt;
and applied in r1557

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner