On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam
<manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
>> <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>> > + ret = owl_i2c_hw_init(i2c_dev);
>> > + if (ret)
>> > + return ret;
Do you mean you are dropping this in next revision?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
