On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Luciano Coelho
<luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> + int ret = wl->if_ops->power(wl, true);
>
> I think it look nicer if you keep the "int ret" in one line by itself
> and then do a ret = wl->if_ops... on another one.
Fixed.
>> +static int wl1271_sdio_power_on(struct wl1271 *wl)
>> {
>> struct sdio_func *func = wl_to_func(wl);
>>
>> sdio_claim_host(func);
>> sdio_enable_func(func);
>> sdio_release_host(func);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> }
>
> You seem to always return 0, so the whole chain to pass the value up
> seems unnecessary. Is this just a preparation for a future patch?
Yes, it's soon going to be:
static int wl1271_sdio_power_on(struct wl1271 *wl)
{
struct sdio_func *func = wl_to_func(wl);
int ret;
ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(&func->dev);
if (ret)
goto out;
sdio_claim_host(func);
sdio_enable_func(func);
sdio_release_host(func);
out:
return ret;
}
Thanks,
Ohad.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Luca.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
