| Message ID | 1450838003-24379-1-git-send-email-glen.lee@atmel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | Kalle Valo |
| Headers | show |
Hi Glen, On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Glen Lee <glen.lee@atmel.com> wrote: > wilc_sdio_init return always 1. It is needless, so just remove it and it's > related codes also. > > Signed-off-by: Glen Lee <glen.lee@atmel.com> > --- > drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c | 12 ------------ > 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c > index e961b50..caad876 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c > @@ -185,11 +185,6 @@ static void wilc_sdio_disable_interrupt(struct wilc *dev) > dev_info(&func->dev, "wilc_sdio_disable_interrupt OUT\n"); > } > > -static int wilc_sdio_init(void) > -{ > - return 1; > -} > - > /******************************************** > * > * Function 0 > @@ -611,13 +606,6 @@ static int sdio_init(struct wilc *wilc) > > g_sdio.irq_gpio = (wilc->dev_irq_num); > > - if (!wilc_sdio_init()) { > - dev_err(&func->dev, "Failed io init bus...\n"); > - return 0; > - } else { > - return 0; > - } > - This isn't equivalent code as both arms of the if statement eventually call return 0. Thanks,
On 2015? 12? 24? 11:39, Julian Calaby wrote: > Hi Glen, > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Glen Lee <glen.lee@atmel.com> wrote: >> wilc_sdio_init return always 1. It is needless, so just remove it and it's >> related codes also. >> >> Signed-off-by: Glen Lee <glen.lee@atmel.com> >> --- >> drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c | 12 ------------ >> 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c >> index e961b50..caad876 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c >> @@ -185,11 +185,6 @@ static void wilc_sdio_disable_interrupt(struct wilc *dev) >> dev_info(&func->dev, "wilc_sdio_disable_interrupt OUT\n"); >> } >> >> -static int wilc_sdio_init(void) >> -{ >> - return 1; >> -} >> - >> /******************************************** >> * >> * Function 0 >> @@ -611,13 +606,6 @@ static int sdio_init(struct wilc *wilc) >> >> g_sdio.irq_gpio = (wilc->dev_irq_num); >> >> - if (!wilc_sdio_init()) { >> - dev_err(&func->dev, "Failed io init bus...\n"); >> - return 0; >> - } else { >> - return 0; >> - } >> - > This isn't equivalent code as both arms of the if statement eventually > call return 0. Hi julian, Yes, you are correct. Actually, The original code was like this before It is patched wrongly. - if (!wilc_sdio_init()) { - dev_err(&func->dev, "Failed io init bus...\n"); - return 0; - } I could fix this first and then remove wilc_sdio_init(). But I thought that this can be fixed by removing wilc_sdio_init which also fixes always return 0 error. Do you think I should fix "always return 0 error" first and then remove wilc_sdio_init()? Or update change log about the error which cause this? regards, glen lee. > > Thanks, > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Glen, On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 2:06 PM, glen lee <glen.lee@atmel.com> wrote: > > > On 2015? 12? 24? 11:39, Julian Calaby wrote: >> >> Hi Glen, >> >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Glen Lee <glen.lee@atmel.com> wrote: >>> >>> wilc_sdio_init return always 1. It is needless, so just remove it and >>> it's >>> related codes also. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Glen Lee <glen.lee@atmel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c | 12 ------------ >>> 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c >>> b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c >>> index e961b50..caad876 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c >>> +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c >>> @@ -185,11 +185,6 @@ static void wilc_sdio_disable_interrupt(struct wilc >>> *dev) >>> dev_info(&func->dev, "wilc_sdio_disable_interrupt OUT\n"); >>> } >>> >>> -static int wilc_sdio_init(void) >>> -{ >>> - return 1; >>> -} >>> - >>> /******************************************** >>> * >>> * Function 0 >>> @@ -611,13 +606,6 @@ static int sdio_init(struct wilc *wilc) >>> >>> g_sdio.irq_gpio = (wilc->dev_irq_num); >>> >>> - if (!wilc_sdio_init()) { >>> - dev_err(&func->dev, "Failed io init bus...\n"); >>> - return 0; >>> - } else { >>> - return 0; >>> - } >>> - >> >> This isn't equivalent code as both arms of the if statement eventually >> call return 0. > > > Hi julian, > > Yes, you are correct. > Actually, The original code was like this before It is patched wrongly. > - if (!wilc_sdio_init()) { > - dev_err(&func->dev, "Failed io init bus...\n"); > - return 0; > - } > I could fix this first and then remove wilc_sdio_init(). > But I thought that this can be fixed by removing wilc_sdio_init which also > fixes always return 0 error. > > Do you think I should fix "always return 0 error" first and then remove > wilc_sdio_init()? > Or update change log about the error which cause this? It should be two patches, my instinct is to do one which fixes it always returning zero, then another that removes the empty function. Fixing bugs then cleaning up seems more logical to me. Thanks,
On 2015? 12? 24? 12:07, Julian Calaby wrote: > Hi Glen, > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 2:06 PM, glen lee <glen.lee@atmel.com> wrote: >> >> On 2015? 12? 24? 11:39, Julian Calaby wrote: >>> Hi Glen, >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Glen Lee <glen.lee@atmel.com> wrote: >>>> wilc_sdio_init return always 1. It is needless, so just remove it and >>>> it's >>>> related codes also. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Glen Lee <glen.lee@atmel.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c | 12 ------------ >>>> 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c >>>> b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c >>>> index e961b50..caad876 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c >>>> @@ -185,11 +185,6 @@ static void wilc_sdio_disable_interrupt(struct wilc >>>> *dev) >>>> dev_info(&func->dev, "wilc_sdio_disable_interrupt OUT\n"); >>>> } >>>> >>>> -static int wilc_sdio_init(void) >>>> -{ >>>> - return 1; >>>> -} >>>> - >>>> /******************************************** >>>> * >>>> * Function 0 >>>> @@ -611,13 +606,6 @@ static int sdio_init(struct wilc *wilc) >>>> >>>> g_sdio.irq_gpio = (wilc->dev_irq_num); >>>> >>>> - if (!wilc_sdio_init()) { >>>> - dev_err(&func->dev, "Failed io init bus...\n"); >>>> - return 0; >>>> - } else { >>>> - return 0; >>>> - } >>>> - >>> This isn't equivalent code as both arms of the if statement eventually >>> call return 0. >> >> Hi julian, >> >> Yes, you are correct. >> Actually, The original code was like this before It is patched wrongly. >> - if (!wilc_sdio_init()) { >> - dev_err(&func->dev, "Failed io init bus...\n"); >> - return 0; >> - } >> I could fix this first and then remove wilc_sdio_init(). >> But I thought that this can be fixed by removing wilc_sdio_init which also >> fixes always return 0 error. >> >> Do you think I should fix "always return 0 error" first and then remove >> wilc_sdio_init()? >> Or update change log about the error which cause this? > It should be two patches, my instinct is to do one which fixes it > always returning zero, then another that removes the empty function. > Fixing bugs then cleaning up seems more logical to me. Hi julian, Thanks for your advise, I will make two patches to fix this. regards, glen lee. > > Thanks, > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
I kind of feel like we have started to err on the side of breaking things up into too many patches. Linus has said the same thing... This patch is not hard to review, except that the title was bad. Originally it was sent as: [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: fix bug in sdio/spi which is the correct title, but the Fixes tag was in the wrong format so Greg rejected it. Now the Fixes tag is missing entirely which is useless and it is disguised as a cleanup. Cleanup patches should not change run time and fixes should be marked clearly. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c index e961b50..caad876 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c @@ -185,11 +185,6 @@ static void wilc_sdio_disable_interrupt(struct wilc *dev) dev_info(&func->dev, "wilc_sdio_disable_interrupt OUT\n"); } -static int wilc_sdio_init(void) -{ - return 1; -} - /******************************************** * * Function 0 @@ -611,13 +606,6 @@ static int sdio_init(struct wilc *wilc) g_sdio.irq_gpio = (wilc->dev_irq_num); - if (!wilc_sdio_init()) { - dev_err(&func->dev, "Failed io init bus...\n"); - return 0; - } else { - return 0; - } - /** * function 0 csa enable **/
wilc_sdio_init return always 1. It is needless, so just remove it and it's related codes also. Signed-off-by: Glen Lee <glen.lee@atmel.com> --- drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_sdio.c | 12 ------------ 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)