[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 
---
 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) {

[Stefan Tauner]

On Wed,  6 Jun 2012 10:18:00 +0200
Niklas Söderlund  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 
and applied in r1557