Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-38873-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
From: =?UTF-8?q?Ilpo=20J=C3=A4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:12:00 +0200 (EET)
To: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
cc: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@intel.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, 
    Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, 
    LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Remove unnecessary ret
 init
In-Reply-To: <ZbJ8gp47CWDDqCb4@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
Message-ID: <b9368410-e084-8d4e-1c81-55c4e6a22434@linux.intel.com>
References: <20240125130328.11253-1-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> <ZbJ8gp47CWDDqCb4@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323328-817356417-1706199120=:1444"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323328-817356417-1706199120=:1444
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Ashok Raj wrote:

> Hi Ilpo
>=20
> thanks for looking into it.
>=20
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:03:28PM +0200, Ilpo J=E4rvinen wrote:
> > ret variable is assigned unconditionally in ifs_load_firmware(), thus
> > remove the unnecessary initialization of it.
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo J=E4rvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >=20
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c b/drivers/platform/x=
86/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)
> >  =09unsigned int expected_size;
> >  =09const struct firmware *fw;
> >  =09char scan_path[64];
> > -=09int ret =3D -EINVAL;
> > +=09int ret;
> > =20
>=20
> Looks reasonable to me.=20
>=20
> I can keep this as a separate cleanup patch, or merge the change in this
> patch.
>=20
> What ever Hans/You prefer.=20

Hi,

I was thinking of merging it myself into pdx86 review-ilpo -> next after=20
allowing it sit on the queue a day or two. IMO, doesn't need to be more=20
complicated than the usual process kernel process with patches, it would=20
just take extra time from all the more there are middlemens handling the=20
patch (after all this is just a trivial cleanup which I noticed while=20
reviewing the patches you sent and since it didn't conflict the series,=20
I just sent the obvious cleanup).

But that's assuming you don't have anything conflicting beyond those=20
patches which you sent? If that's the case, it would be better for you to=
=20
take care of it so just let me and I won't merge it myself until it comes=
=20
back.


--=20
 i.

--8323328-817356417-1706199120=:1444--