linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] i2c: Add Actions Semi OWL family S900 I2C driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:04:20 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        刘炜 <liuwei@...ions-semi.com>,
        mp-cs@...ions-semi.com, 96boards@...obotics.com,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        hzhang@...obotics.com, bdong@...obotics.com,
        Mani Sadhasivam <manivannanece23@...il.com>,
        Thomas Liau <thomas.liau@...ions-semi.com>,
        jeff.chen@...ions-semi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] i2c: Add Actions Semi OWL family S900 I2C driver

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam
<manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 03:14:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam
>> <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:

>> > +static int owl_i2c_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs,
>> > +                               int num)
>> > +{
>>
>> > +       int ret = 0, idx;
>>
>> Redundant assignment.
>>
>
> No. Actually the return path will be fixed in next iteration. Please
> see my reply to Peter's review for explanation.

How come? I didn't find anything related to this comment in reply you
are referring to.
I left deliberately the below part to show you the pointlessness of an
assignment to 0.

>> > +       ret = owl_i2c_hw_init(i2c_dev);
>> > +       if (ret)
>> > +               return ret;

Do you mean you are dropping this in next revision?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko