diff for duplicates of <548856AF.8090805@roeck-us.net>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 7984a25..a3d60e9 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ While nice, this is an unrelated change.
 >   		val = (s16)data->regs[reg];
 >   		break;
 > +	case INA2XX_CALIBRATION:
-> +		if (data->regs[reg] = 0)
+> +		if (data->regs[reg] == 0)
 > +			val = 0;
 > +		else
 > +			val = data->config->calibration_factor
@@ -93,20 +93,14 @@ I think it would be better to write a separate show function to display it.
 > +	if (status < 0)
 > +		return status;
 > +
-> +	if (val = 0 ||
+> +	if (val == 0 ||
 > +	    /* Values greater than the calibration factor make no sense. */
 > +	    val > data->config->calibration_factor ||
 > +	    val > LONG_MAX)
 
 data->config->calibration_factor is <= LONG_MAX, so the second check is unnecessary.
 Actually, given that calibration_factor is chip dependent and not necessarily known
-by the user, it would make more sense to only bail out on = 0 and then use clamp_val
+by the user, it would make more sense to only bail out on == 0 and then use clamp_val
 to limit the range to (1, data->config->calibration_factor).
 
 Guenter
-
-
-_______________________________________________
-lm-sensors mailing list
-lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
-http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 35b1daa..b0a8df6 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
  "ref\01418207937-11648-1-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com\0"
  "ref\01418207937-11648-2-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com\0"
  "From\0Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>\0"
- "Subject\0Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH v5 1/3] hwmon: ina2xx: make shunt resistance configurable at run-time\0"
- "Date\0Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:20:31 +0000\0"
+ "Subject\0Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] hwmon: ina2xx: make shunt resistance configurable at run-time\0"
+ "Date\0Wed, 10 Dec 2014 06:20:31 -0800\0"
  "To\0Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>\0"
  "Cc\0LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>"
   Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com>
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@
  ">   \t\tval = (s16)data->regs[reg];\n"
  ">   \t\tbreak;\n"
  "> +\tcase INA2XX_CALIBRATION:\n"
- "> +\t\tif (data->regs[reg] = 0)\n"
+ "> +\t\tif (data->regs[reg] == 0)\n"
  "> +\t\t\tval = 0;\n"
  "> +\t\telse\n"
  "> +\t\t\tval = data->config->calibration_factor\n"
@@ -105,22 +105,16 @@
  "> +\tif (status < 0)\n"
  "> +\t\treturn status;\n"
  "> +\n"
- "> +\tif (val = 0 ||\n"
+ "> +\tif (val == 0 ||\n"
  "> +\t    /* Values greater than the calibration factor make no sense. */\n"
  "> +\t    val > data->config->calibration_factor ||\n"
  "> +\t    val > LONG_MAX)\n"
  "\n"
  "data->config->calibration_factor is <= LONG_MAX, so the second check is unnecessary.\n"
  "Actually, given that calibration_factor is chip dependent and not necessarily known\n"
- "by the user, it would make more sense to only bail out on = 0 and then use clamp_val\n"
+ "by the user, it would make more sense to only bail out on == 0 and then use clamp_val\n"
  "to limit the range to (1, data->config->calibration_factor).\n"
  "\n"
- "Guenter\n"
- "\n"
- "\n"
- "_______________________________________________\n"
- "lm-sensors mailing list\n"
- "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org\n"
- http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
+ Guenter
 
-4e53eff4f9c12359f1d464dd22cc001af27a9c98616a94183a7177d9e5177525
+719e6bf1b9299a2436f023c2de5d7f2aca7e9a0bbd39902ee6b159b717b7b245
