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
> <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.
>
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
--
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
