Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753509AbdHUL3G (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2017 07:29:06 -0400 Received: from lucky1.263xmail.com ([211.157.147.135]:38512 "EHLO lucky1.263xmail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752234AbdHUL3E (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2017 07:29:04 -0400 X-263anti-spam: KSV:0; X-MAIL-GRAY: 1 X-MAIL-DELIVERY: 0 X-KSVirus-check: 0 X-ABS-CHECKED: 4 X-RL-SENDER: david.wu@rock-chips.com X-FST-TO: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-SENDER-IP: 58.22.7.114 X-LOGIN-NAME: david.wu@rock-chips.com X-UNIQUE-TAG: <2cb5ccfb30a8dfdc012f4525b5f4446d> X-ATTACHMENT-NUM: 0 X-DNS-TYPE: 0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] pwm: rockchip: Remove the judge from return value of pwm_config To: Brian Norris , Thierry Reding Cc: heiko@sntech.de, boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dianders@chromium.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, huangtao@rock-chips.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1502206715-24174-1-git-send-email-david.wu@rock-chips.com> <1502206715-24174-3-git-send-email-david.wu@rock-chips.com> <20170818153255.GC18307@ulmo> <20170818162830.GA115593@google.com> From: "David.Wu" Message-ID: <1f3bda8e-3130-efeb-92f4-f6c57944b1f3@rock-chips.com> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:29:00 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170818162830.GA115593@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 774 Lines: 24 Hi Thierry, ?? 2017/8/19 0:28, Brian Norris ะด??: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 05:32:55PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: >> I don't understand what the "judge" is supposed to be, but I've applied >> this to for-4.14/drivers anyway. Thanks. > > Probably just an artifact of non-native English. > > Judging by context, David probably meant more like "Remove the check for > the return value". I believe I've seen other non-native English speakers > use "judge" in a way similar to "check" or "test" in the context of > comparisons and error checking. (A search through my mailbox for "judge" > confirms this.) > Yeap, as Brain said, the "Remove the check for the return value "will be better, the "judge" looks like a grammatical error here now. > Regards, > Brian > > >