[PATCH] wm8940: remove unecessary if statement

[PATCH] wm8940: remove unecessary if statement

[Greg Dietsche]

the code always returns ret regardless, so if(ret) check is unecessary.

Signed-off-by: Greg Dietsche <Gregory.Dietsche@cuw.edu>
---
 sound/soc/codecs/wm8940.c |    3 ---
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8940.c b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8940.c
index 25580e3..1ada6d3 100644
--- a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8940.c
+++ b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8940.c
@@ -730,9 +730,6 @@ static int wm8940_probe(struct snd_soc_codec *codec)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 	ret = wm8940_add_widgets(codec);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
 	return ret;
 }
 
-- 
1.7.2.5

Re: [PATCH] wm8940: remove unecessary if statement

[Jonathan Cameron]

On 06/06/11 01:47, Greg Dietsche wrote:
> the code always returns ret regardless, so if(ret) check is unecessary.
Good point, though please spell check your commit messages.
unecessary -> unnecessary

Also if you want to do this sort of cleanup, please also fix the
equivalent in wm8940_resume and wm8940_add_widgets.  Ack is for
what is here, plus those if you do them.

Just as an aside, there is no earthly point in cc'ing lkml for a
simple cleanup like this. Just adds to already huge amount of noise!
> 
> Signed-off-by: Greg Dietsche <Gregory.Dietsche@cuw.edu>
Acked-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>
> ---
>  sound/soc/codecs/wm8940.c |    3 ---
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8940.c b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8940.c
> index 25580e3..1ada6d3 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8940.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8940.c
> @@ -730,9 +730,6 @@ static int wm8940_probe(struct snd_soc_codec *codec)
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  	ret = wm8940_add_widgets(codec);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  

Re: [PATCH] wm8940: remove unecessary if statement

[Liam Girdwood]

On 06/06/11 10:31, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 06/06/11 01:47, Greg Dietsche wrote:
>> the code always returns ret regardless, so if(ret) check is unecessary.
> Good point, though please spell check your commit messages.
> unecessary -> unnecessary
> 
> Also if you want to do this sort of cleanup, please also fix the
> equivalent in wm8940_resume and wm8940_add_widgets.  Ack is for
> what is here, plus those if you do them.
> 
> Just as an aside, there is no earthly point in cc'ing lkml for a
> simple cleanup like this. Just adds to already huge amount of noise!
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Greg Dietsche <Gregory.Dietsche@cuw.edu>
> Acked-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>

Acked-by: Liam Girdwood <lrg@ti.com>

Re: [PATCH] wm8940: remove unecessary if statement

[Greg Dietsche]

Hi Jonathan,

On 06/06/2011 04:31 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 06/06/11 01:47, Greg Dietsche wrote:
>    
>> the code always returns ret regardless, so if(ret) check is unecessary.
>>      
> Good point, though please spell check your commit messages.
> unecessary ->  unnecessary
>    
oops! usually I'm the guy critiquing spelling :)
> Also if you want to do this sort of cleanup, please also fix the
> equivalent in wm8940_resume and wm8940_add_widgets.  Ack is for
> what is here, plus those if you do them.
>    
I will take a look at these, but it might be a few days. I used 
coccinelle to create this patch and my semantic patch wasn't 'smart' 
enough to find them.
> Just as an aside, there is no earthly point in cc'ing lkml for a
> simple cleanup like this. Just adds to already huge amount of noise!
>    
Thanks for all of your feedback. In your opinion, what is the best way 
for someone such as myself to send patches like these? I read in 
Documentation/SubmittingPatches "Unless you have a reason NOT to do so, 
CC linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org"

Also, for this embarrassing spelling problem... do I submit a new patch? :)

Thanks,
Greg

Re: [PATCH] wm8940: remove unecessary if statement

[Jonathan Cameron]

On 06/06/11 13:45, Greg Dietsche wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> On 06/06/2011 04:31 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 06/06/11 01:47, Greg Dietsche wrote:
>>   
>>> the code always returns ret regardless, so if(ret) check is unecessary.
>>>      
>> Good point, though please spell check your commit messages.
>> unecessary ->  unnecessary
>>    
> oops! usually I'm the guy critiquing spelling :)
The advantage of reviewing patches in an email client that sticks wiggly
red lines under words it doesn't recognise (I'd never have noticed otherwise!)
>> Also if you want to do this sort of cleanup, please also fix the
>> equivalent in wm8940_resume and wm8940_add_widgets.  Ack is for
>> what is here, plus those if you do them.
>>    
> I will take a look at these, but it might be a few days. I used coccinelle to create this patch and my semantic patch wasn't 'smart' enough to find them.
>> Just as an aside, there is no earthly point in cc'ing lkml for a
>> simple cleanup like this. Just adds to already huge amount of noise!
>>    
> Thanks for all of your feedback. In your opinion, what is the best
> way for someone such as myself to send patches like these? I read in
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches "Unless you have a reason NOT to do
> so, CC linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org"

Fair enough.  The posting to lkml makes more sense now I know it came
out of coccinelle (I guess with a load of others? - if so convention would be
to put them all in a series cc'ing the relevant lists / maintainers for individual
patches in the series - that way everyone knows what is going on).

If it is an individual patch like this, then use apply common sense. It makes
no functional changes + is well within a subsystem with it's own active mailing
list.  It needs to be sent somewhere publicly, but in this case
I'd say alsa-devel is the right destination.  The only people who are even going
to read this are the subsystem maintainer, the driver author or the chronically
bored.

Also I think convention is to have the script somewhere (cover letter to that 
series perhaps?).  See the other series people have done with coccinelle and
how they handled this.
> 
> Also, for this embarrassing spelling problem... do I submit a new patch? :)
Probably easiest option, though maintainer might just fix it up for you
(best not to assume they will though).

Git history is full of typos, so I wouldn't worry too much (a good few
of them are mine for starters).
> Thanks,
> Greg
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH] wm8940: remove unecessary if statement

[Greg Dietsche]

Hi Jonathan,

On 06/06/2011 08:05 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 06/06/11 13:45, Greg Dietsche wrote:
>    
>
>>> Also if you want to do this sort of cleanup, please also fix the
>>> equivalent in wm8940_resume and wm8940_add_widgets.  Ack is for
>>> what is here, plus those if you do them.
>>>
>>>        
I updated the patch to include these too.
>>> Just as an aside, there is no earthly point in cc'ing lkml for a
>>> simple cleanup like this. Just adds to already huge amount of noise!
>>>
>>>        
...and remove LKML from the CC list... :)
> Fair enough.  The posting to lkml makes more sense now I know it came
> out of coccinelle (I guess with a load of others? - if so convention would be
>    
a handful... not too many, but it sounds like if my semantic patch were 
to be improved,
there might be a few more.
> to put them all in a series cc'ing the relevant lists / maintainers for individual
> patches in the series - that way everyone knows what is going on).
>
> If it is an individual patch like this, then use apply common sense. It makes
> no functional changes + is well within a subsystem with it's own active mailing
> list.  It needs to be sent somewhere publicly, but in this case
> I'd say alsa-devel is the right destination.  The only people who are even going
> to read this are the subsystem maintainer, the driver author or the chronically
> bored.
>
> Also I think convention is to have the script somewhere (cover letter to that
> series perhaps?).  See the other series people have done with coccinelle and
> how they handled this.
>    
>
Thanks so much for the great explanation being patient with a kernel 
newbie :)

Greg