Hi,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2016/6/8 6:44, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>>
>> There's no reason to store the return value of rockchip_emmc_phy_power()
>> in a variable nor to check it. Just return it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/phy/phy-rockchip-emmc.c | 8 +-------
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-rockchip-emmc.c
>> b/drivers/phy/phy-rockchip-emmc.c
>> index 0fce7359d468..188e4c387ba8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/phy/phy-rockchip-emmc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-rockchip-emmc.c
>> @@ -227,8 +227,6 @@ static int rockchip_emmc_phy_power_off(struct phy
>> *phy)
>> static int rockchip_emmc_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
>> {
>
>
> I saw the cleanup for power_off is done on [patch 9/11]
>
> shouldn't be in this patch? :)
Yeah, I tried to, but then I realized that I couldn't split that out
too easily because the previous patch touched the same code.
...but actually, reordering things solves all the problems so I've done that.
-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
