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>
---
v2: address Vinod's comment and use single return
drivers/soundwire/bus.c | 7 ++-----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
index ccaa590df61e..488c3c9e4947 100644
--- a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
+++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
@@ -1056,13 +1056,10 @@ static int sdw_initialize_slave(struct sdw_slave *slave)
val |= SDW_DP0_INT_PORT_READY | SDW_DP0_INT_BRA_FAILURE;
ret = sdw_update(slave, SDW_DP0_INTMASK, val, val);
- if (ret < 0) {
+ if (ret < 0)
dev_err(slave->bus->dev,
"SDW_DP0_INTMASK read failed:%d\n", ret);
- return val;
- }
-
- return 0;
+ return ret;
}
static int sdw_handle_dp0_interrupt(struct sdw_slave *slave, u8 *slave_status)
--
2.20.1
