On 05/22/2017 03:29 PM, Antony Pavlov wrote:
The patch fixes this compiler's warning:
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c: In function ‘mv64xxx_i2c_fsm’:
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c:303:3: warning: this ‘if’ clause does
not guard... [-Wmisleading-indentation]
if (drv_data->bytes_left == 1)
^~
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c:305:4: note: ...this statement, but the
latter is misleadingly indented as if it is guarded by the ‘if’
udelay(2);
^~~~~~
Signed-off-by: Antony Pavlov <antonynpavlov@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Bastian Stender <bst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c
index 1a5d5ef9b..285ede84c 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c
@@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ mv64xxx_i2c_fsm(struct mv64xxx_i2c_data *drv_data, u32 status)
if (drv_data->bytes_left == 1)
drv_data->cntl_bits &= ~REG_CONTROL_ACK;
- udelay(2);
+ udelay(2);
break;
case STATUS_MAST_RD_DATA_NO_ACK: /* 0x58 */
Yes, the indentation happened accidentally. I just checked the
functional spec again: the udelay is necessary regardless of
drv_data->bytes_left.
Thanks.
Regards,
Bastian
--
Pengutronix e.K.
Industrial Linux Solutions
http://www.pengutronix.de/
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
