On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 21:53 +0200, ext Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> 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;
> }
>
Ok, that was the only explanation I could think of ;)
Acked-by: Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx>
--
Cheers,
Luca.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
