Re: [PATCH] gpio: twl4030: Remove redundant assignment

[Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 02/24/2014 04:25 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Variable "status" is never used, so remove it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpio/gpio-twl4030.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-twl4030.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-twl4030.c
>> index 8b88ca2..fa15beb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-twl4030.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-twl4030.c
>> @@ -139,7 +139,6 @@ static u8 cached_leden;
>>  static void twl4030_led_set_value(int led, int value)
>>  {
>>         u8 mask = LEDEN_LEDAON | LEDEN_LEDAPWM;
>> -       int status;
>>
>>         if (led)
>>                 mask <<= 1;
>> @@ -148,8 +147,9 @@ static void twl4030_led_set_value(int led, int value)
>>                 cached_leden &= ~mask;
>>         else
>>                 cached_leden |= mask;
>> -       status = twl_i2c_write_u8(TWL4030_MODULE_LED, cached_leden,
>> -                                 TWL4030_LED_LEDEN_REG);
>> +
>> +       twl_i2c_write_u8(TWL4030_MODULE_LED, cached_leden,
>> +                        TWL4030_LED_LEDEN_REG);
> 
> Isn't the right fix to actually *check* this status instead?
> 
> TI dudes?

Yes we should check for error. But the only action we can take is maybe print an error message
as all the users of this function return void. e.g. twl_set().

It seems the set() hook of struct gpio_chip also doesn't expect any return value. Wondering if that should change.

cheers,
-roger
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html