On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 1:00 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/9/22 11:52, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Saturday, July 9, 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > On 7/9/22 02:06, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > So nack for this > > > > This effectively means nack to the series. > > But it’s easy to fix. I can add check for ret == 0. So, are you okay with fixing it this way? See below how. > I don't see how this is a nack for the series, just drop 1/7 + 2/7 > and rebase the rest. Yes there will be conflicts to resolve in > the rebase, but the rest of the cleanups can still go upstream > after the rebase. Because patch 3 makes a little sense on its own if we drop the patch 2. The rest is the simple cleanups which I do not consider as a core of this series. > > > case SMI_AUTO_DETECT: > > > - if (i2c_acpi_client_count(adev) > 0) > > > - return smi_i2c_probe(pdev, adev, smi, node->instances); > > > - else > > > - return smi_spi_probe(pdev, adev, smi, node->instances); > > > + ret = smi_i2c_probe(pdev, adev, smi, node->instances); > > > + if (ret && ret != -ENOENT) > > > + return ret; /* * ...comment about why we do the following check... */ if (ret == 0) return ret; > > > + ret = smi_spi_probe(pdev, adev, smi, node->instances); > > > + if (ret && ret != -ENOENT) > > > + return ret; > > > + if (ret) > > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Error No resources found\n"); > > > + break; if (ret == -ENOENT) return dev_err_probe(...); return ret; -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
