[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150119074046.GM3574@x1>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:40:46 +0000
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: 敬锐 <micky_ching@...lsil.com.cn>
Cc: "sameo@...ux.intel.com" <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"rogerable@...ltek.com" <rogerable@...ltek.com>,
王炜 <wei_wang@...lsil.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] mfd: rtsx: add support for rts524A
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, 敬锐 wrote:
>
> On 01/18/2015 08:20 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> +static int rts524a_optimize_phy(struct rtsx_pcr *pcr)
> >> >+{
> >> >+ int err;
> >> >+
> >> >+ err = rtsx_pci_write_register(pcr, RTS524A_PM_CTRL3,
> >> >+ D3_DELINK_MODE_EN, 0x00);
> >> >+ if (err < 0)
> >> >+ return err;
> > if (err)
> >
> err value will never be positive, but I have to make it consistence
> with driver in other place, because all the check using if (err < 0) form.
Then all of them should be changed.
> And maybe, it make reserved for future the function may return positive
> value.
I'd prefer not to live in the world of 'what if'. I think only
checking for a less than zero error value insinuates that a greater
than zero return is acceptable, but in this case is it not.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists