Hi Wolfram,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:18 AM Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:11:09AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 1:36 AM Wolfram Sang
> > <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > pd->pos won't be smaller than -1, so we can simplify the logic.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks for your patch!
> >
> > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sh_mobile.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sh_mobile.c
> > > @@ -392,13 +392,9 @@ static int sh_mobile_i2c_isr_rx(struct sh_mobile_i2c_data *pd)
> > > int real_pos;
> > >
> > > do {
> > > - if (pd->pos <= -1) {
> >
> > If this condition is never true, shouldn't the block just be removed instead?
>
> "pd->pos won't be *smaller* than -1"
I stand corrected.
Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
