On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 05:58:39PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:46 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 08:52:27AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:08 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 08:45:26PM +0100, Phil Edworthy wrote:
...
> > > > > +static int rzv2m_i2c_send(struct rzv2m_i2c_priv *priv, struct i2c_msg *msg,
> > > > > + unsigned int *count)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + unsigned int i;
> > > > > + int ret = 0;
> > > >
> > > > Redundant assignment, you may return 0 directly.
^^^
> > > Can you prove msg->len is never zero, and the loop below is always
> > > executed at least once?
> >
> > I don't see how this is related. The ret is used only in the loop body,
> >
> > return 0;
> >
> > outside will suffice. No?
>
> Right, with the "return ret" in the end replaced.
Exactly what I meant above with "you may return 0 directly".
> > > The driver does set I2C_AQ_NO_ZERO_LEN, but I don't think the static
> > > checkers know ;-)
> > >
> > > > > + for (i = 0; i < msg->len; i++) {
> > > > > + ret = rzv2m_i2c_write_with_ack(priv, msg->buf[i]);
> > > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + *count = i;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > +}
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
