linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/14] net: dsa: Report known silicon revisions for Marvell 88E6060

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]

Message-ID: <5449008C.4050505@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:20:12 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] net: dsa: Report known silicon revisions for Marvell
 88E6060

On 10/23/2014 05:51 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 10/23/2014 8:03 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
>> Report known silicon revisions when probing Marvell 88E6060 switches.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c | 5 ++++-
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c
>> index 05b0ca3..c29aebe 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c
>> @@ -69,8 +69,11 @@ static char *mv88e6060_probe(struct device *host_dev, int sw_addr)
>>
>>       ret = mdiobus_read(bus, sw_addr + REG_PORT(0), 0x03);
>>       if (ret >= 0) {
>> -        ret &= 0xfff0;
>>           if (ret == 0x0600)
>> +            return "Marvell 88E6060 (A0)";
>> +        if (ret == 0x0601 || ret == 0x0602)
>
>     *else* *if*.
>
>> +            return "Marvell 88E6060 (B0)";
>> +        if ((ret & 0xfff0) == 0x0600)
>
>     Likewise?
>

The if case returns, so the else would just introduce an unnecessary
additional level of indentation. I think nowadays even checkpatch
complains about an unnecessary else after return.

Thanks,
Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/