On Thu, 10 Apr 2014, Jingoo Han wrote: > > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-exynos.c > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-exynos.c > > > @@ -212,6 +212,8 @@ static int exynos_ehci_suspend(struct device *dev) > > > int rc; > > > > > > rc = ehci_suspend(hcd, do_wakeup); > > > + if (rc) > > > + return rc; > > > > > > if (exynos_ehci->otg) > > > exynos_ehci->otg->set_host(exynos_ehci->otg, &hcd->self); > > > @@ -221,7 +223,7 @@ static int exynos_ehci_suspend(struct device *dev) > > > > > > clk_disable_unprepare(exynos_ehci->clk); > > > > > > - return rc; > > > + return 0; > > > } > > > > > > static int exynos_ehci_resume(struct device *dev) > > > > The first hunk of this patch is correct, but the second hunk isn't > > needed. A similar remark is true for the ehci-platform patch. > > Hi Alan, > > Do you mean the following? > > 1st hunk > + if (rc) > + return rc; > > 2nd hunk > - return rc; > + return 0; Yes, that's what I mean. > Currently, the 'rc' will be always 'zero'; however, I don't > Have any objection, because the code might be modified later. Exactly. We should add the new "if" statement but leave the "return rc" the way it is. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |