Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755296AbbHFQVS (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2015 12:21:18 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]:38079 "EHLO mail-wi0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753911AbbHFQVR (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2015 12:21:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150805232105.GC74817@vmdeb7> References: <1438401496-27744-1-git-send-email-coproscefalo@gmail.com> <1438401496-27744-5-git-send-email-coproscefalo@gmail.com> <20150805202134.GB12131@vmdeb7> <20150805232105.GC74817@vmdeb7> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:21:15 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] toshiba_acpi: Remove unnecessary checks and returns in HCI/SCI functions From: Azael Avalos To: Darren Hart Cc: "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2165 Lines: 61 Hi Darren, 2015-08-05 17:21 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart : > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:23:49PM -0600, Azael Avalos wrote: >> Hi Darren, >> >> 2015-08-05 14:21 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart : >> >> @@ -1131,14 +1055,10 @@ static int toshiba_usb_three_set(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev, u32 state) >> >> >> >> result = sci_write(dev, SCI_USB_THREE, state); >> >> sci_close(dev); >> >> - if (result == TOS_FAILURE) { >> >> + if (result == TOS_FAILURE) >> >> pr_err("ACPI call to set USB 3 failed\n"); >> >> - return -EIO; >> >> - } else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) { >> >> + else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) >> >> return -ENODEV; >> >> - } else if (result == TOS_INPUT_DATA_ERROR) { >> >> - return -EIO; >> >> - } >> >> >> >> return (result == TOS_SUCCESS || result == TOS_SUCCESS2) 0 : -EIO; >> > >> > Hrm... the above line cause patch application failure via git (note the >> > missing ? before the '0 : -EIO;'). This never existed upstream so far as >> > I can determine. >> >> I've spotted that while compile-checking my changes locally, but I might >> have sent you the wrong patch here, I'll double check in the future to avoid >> these embarrassments :-( >> >> > >> > It applied with some fuzz manually, but I'm concerned about how this >> > happened. Did you have a dirty tree when you prepared these patches >> > perhaps? >> >> This is weird, all these patches applied cleanly on my local copy, I'll fetch >> a new copy from your "for-next" tree and check w/ it. > > Please verify what I have in "testing", if that's right, then we're good. It has > already passed my checks and 0day's. I just checked it, and it's good, sorry for all the fuzz :-) > > -- > Darren Hart > Intel Open Source Technology Center Cheers Azael -- -- El mundo apesta y vosotros apestais tambien -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/