On Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Ashok Raj wrote: > Hi Ilpo > > thanks for looking into it. > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:03:28PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > ret variable is assigned unconditionally in ifs_load_firmware(), thus > > remove the unnecessary initialization of it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c > > index a1ee1a74fc3c..03e49b836a6b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c > > @@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ int ifs_load_firmware(struct device *dev) > > unsigned int expected_size; > > const struct firmware *fw; > > char scan_path[64]; > > - int ret = -EINVAL; > > + int ret; > > > > Looks reasonable to me. > > I can keep this as a separate cleanup patch, or merge the change in this > patch. > > What ever Hans/You prefer. Hi, I was thinking of merging it myself into pdx86 review-ilpo -> next after allowing it sit on the queue a day or two. IMO, doesn't need to be more complicated than the usual process kernel process with patches, it would just take extra time from all the more there are middlemens handling the patch (after all this is just a trivial cleanup which I noticed while reviewing the patches you sent and since it didn't conflict the series, I just sent the obvious cleanup). But that's assuming you don't have anything conflicting beyond those patches which you sent? If that's the case, it would be better for you to take care of it so just let me and I won't merge it myself until it comes back. -- i.
