On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 07:22:09PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > I don't disagree. The rationale for the change is that I simply reverted > to how the code was before 33cf00e5, assuming that the introduction of > spi as a local variable was caused by it being used more than once. If > you believe this was a good change on its own and would prefer to keep > it that way, I could send a patch replacing this one and only changing > &spi->dev to dev. Let me know. I do have a small preference for it but I don't care enough to suggest you actually send that patch - if it annoyed me enough I'd just fix it myself.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
