On 25-02-20, 10:49, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> From: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> It seems to be a typo. It makes more sense to return the return value
> of sdw_update() instead of the value we want to update.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/soundwire/bus.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
> index 13887713f311..b8a7a84aca1c 100644
> --- a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
> @@ -1070,7 +1070,7 @@ static int sdw_initialize_slave(struct sdw_slave *slave)
> if (ret < 0) {
> dev_err(slave->bus->dev,
> "SDW_DP0_INTMASK read failed:%d\n", ret);
> - return val;
> + return ret;
good catch. But can we optimize it to:
> }
>
> return 0;
make this as below and remove the return above.
return ret;
> --
> 2.20.1
--
~Vinod
