Hi Ilpo
thanks for looking into it.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:03:28PM +0200, Ilpo J?rvinen wrote:
> ret variable is assigned unconditionally in ifs_load_firmware(), thus
> remove the unnecessary initialization of it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ilpo J?rvinen <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c
> index a1ee1a74fc3c..03e49b836a6b 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c
> @@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ int ifs_load_firmware(struct device *dev)
> unsigned int expected_size;
> const struct firmware *fw;
> char scan_path[64];
> - int ret = -EINVAL;
> + int ret;
>
Looks reasonable to me.
I can keep this as a separate cleanup patch, or merge the change in this
patch.
What ever Hans/You prefer.
Cheers,
Ashok
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Ashok Raj wrote:
> Hi Ilpo
>
> thanks for looking into it.
>
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:03:28PM +0200, Ilpo J?rvinen wrote:
> > ret variable is assigned unconditionally in ifs_load_firmware(), thus
> > remove the unnecessary initialization of it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo J?rvinen <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c
> > index a1ee1a74fc3c..03e49b836a6b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c
> > @@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ int ifs_load_firmware(struct device *dev)
> > unsigned int expected_size;
> > const struct firmware *fw;
> > char scan_path[64];
> > - int ret = -EINVAL;
> > + int ret;
> >
>
> Looks reasonable to me.
>
> I can keep this as a separate cleanup patch, or merge the change in this
> patch.
>
> What ever Hans/You prefer.
Hi,
I was thinking of merging it myself into pdx86 review-ilpo -> next after
allowing it sit on the queue a day or two. IMO, doesn't need to be more
complicated than the usual process kernel process with patches, it would
just take extra time from all the more there are middlemens handling the
patch (after all this is just a trivial cleanup which I noticed while
reviewing the patches you sent and since it didn't conflict the series,
I just sent the obvious cleanup).
But that's assuming you don't have anything conflicting beyond those
patches which you sent? If that's the case, it would be better for you to
take care of it so just let me and I won't merge it myself until it comes
back.
--
i.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 06:12:00PM +0200, Ilpo J?rvinen wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Ashok Raj wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Hi,
>
> I was thinking of merging it myself into pdx86 review-ilpo -> next after
> allowing it sit on the queue a day or two. IMO, doesn't need to be more
> complicated than the usual process kernel process with patches, it would
> just take extra time from all the more there are middlemens handling the
> patch (after all this is just a trivial cleanup which I noticed while
> reviewing the patches you sent and since it didn't conflict the series,
> I just sent the obvious cleanup).
>
> But that's assuming you don't have anything conflicting beyond those
> patches which you sent? If that's the case, it would be better for you to
> take care of it so just let me and I won't merge it myself until it comes
> back.
I don't have anything beyond this that conflicts with this change.
Feel free to add
Reviewed-by: Ashok Raj <[email protected]>