On 2/26/20 2:03 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On 25-02-20, 10:49, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
From: Bard Liao yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com
It seems to be a typo. It makes more sense to return the return value of sdw_update() instead of the value we want to update.
Signed-off-by: Bard Liao yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com
drivers/soundwire/bus.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c index 13887713f311..b8a7a84aca1c 100644 --- a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c +++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c @@ -1070,7 +1070,7 @@ static int sdw_initialize_slave(struct sdw_slave *slave) if (ret < 0) { dev_err(slave->bus->dev, "SDW_DP0_INTMASK read failed:%d\n", ret);
return val;
return ret;good catch. But can we optimize it to:
}
return 0;
make this as below and remove the return above.
ok, will resend as v2.