From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Manivannan Sadhasivam Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] i2c: Add Actions Semi OWL family S900 I2C driver Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 18:44:39 +0530 Message-ID: <20180630131439.GC16775@Mani-XPS-13-9360> References: <20180628181042.2239-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20180628181042.2239-6-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20180630124400.GB16775@Mani-XPS-13-9360> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Wolfram Sang , Rob Herring , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= , Linus Walleij , linux-i2c , =?utf-8?B?5YiY54Kc?= , mp-cs@actions-semi.com, 96boards@ucrobotics.com, devicetree , Daniel Thompson , amit.kucheria@linaro.org, linux-arm Mailing List , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , hzhang@ucrobotics.com, bdong@ucrobotics.com, Mani Sadhasivam , Thomas Liau , jeff.chen@actions-semi.com List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org Hi Andy, On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 04:04:20PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam > wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 03:14:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam > >> wrote: > > >> > +static int owl_i2c_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs, > >> > + int num) > >> > +{ > >> > >> > + int ret = 0, idx; > >> > >> Redundant assignment. > >> > > > > No. Actually the return path will be fixed in next iteration. Please > > see my reply to Peter's review for explanation. > > How come? I didn't find anything related to this comment in reply you > are referring to. > I left deliberately the below part to show you the pointlessness of an > assignment to 0. > Sorry, my bad. I overlooked this part. This assignment will be dropped. > >> > + ret = owl_i2c_hw_init(i2c_dev); > >> > + if (ret) > >> > + return ret; > > Do you mean you are dropping this in next revision? > Nope :) Thanks, Mani > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org (Manivannan Sadhasivam) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 18:44:39 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v2 5/6] i2c: Add Actions Semi OWL family S900 I2C driver In-Reply-To: References: <20180628181042.2239-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20180628181042.2239-6-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20180630124400.GB16775@Mani-XPS-13-9360> Message-ID: <20180630131439.GC16775@Mani-XPS-13-9360> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Andy, On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 04:04:20PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam > wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 03:14:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam > >> wrote: > > >> > +static int owl_i2c_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs, > >> > + int num) > >> > +{ > >> > >> > + int ret = 0, idx; > >> > >> Redundant assignment. > >> > > > > No. Actually the return path will be fixed in next iteration. Please > > see my reply to Peter's review for explanation. > > How come? I didn't find anything related to this comment in reply you > are referring to. > I left deliberately the below part to show you the pointlessness of an > assignment to 0. > Sorry, my bad. I overlooked this part. This assignment will be dropped. > >> > + ret = owl_i2c_hw_init(i2c_dev); > >> > + if (ret) > >> > + return ret; > > Do you mean you are dropping this in next revision? > Nope :) Thanks, Mani > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko