On 07/05/2015 09:08 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: <snip> > Looking pretty good to me, though I'd like to give Peter time to take > another look and give his reviewed-by etc. > > One really minor suggestion from me... > <snip> >> + >> +static int opt3001_probe(struct i2c_client *client, >> + const struct i2c_device_id *id) >> +{ >> + struct device *dev = &client->dev; >> + >> + struct iio_dev *iio; >> + struct opt3001 *opt; >> + int irq = client->irq; >> + int ret = -ENOMEM; >> + >> + iio = devm_iio_device_alloc(dev, sizeof(*opt)); >> + if (!iio) > return -ENOMEM; would be cleaner, then there is no need to initialize > ret either. Hi Jonathan, thanks for looking at my code. While we are waiting for additional feedback would you like me to go ahead and re-spin/re-test the patch with your latest suggestion? Regards, -- Andreas Dannenberg Texas Instruments Inc. -- 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