> @@ -1131,14 +1055,10 @@ static int toshiba_usb_three_set(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev, u32 state)
>
> result = sci_write(dev, SCI_USB_THREE, state);
> sci_close(dev);
> - if (result == TOS_FAILURE) {
> + if (result == TOS_FAILURE)
> pr_err("ACPI call to set USB 3 failed\n");
> - return -EIO;
> - } else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) {
> + else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED)
> return -ENODEV;
> - } else if (result == TOS_INPUT_DATA_ERROR) {
> - return -EIO;
> - }
>
> return (result == TOS_SUCCESS || result == TOS_SUCCESS2) 0 : -EIO;
Hrm... the above line cause patch application failure via git (note the
missing ? before the '0 : -EIO;'). This never existed upstream so far as
I can determine.
It applied with some fuzz manually, but I'm concerned about how this
happened. Did you have a dirty tree when you prepared these patches
perhaps?
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
