From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladimir Zapolskiy Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] ASoC: wm8903: simplify gpiolib callbacks Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 23:41:01 +0300 Message-ID: <556E14DD.5040606@mleia.com> References: <1433200031-6748-1-git-send-email-vz@mleia.com> <1433200158-6890-4-git-send-email-vz@mleia.com> <20150602194153.GH14071@sirena.org.uk> <556E0F8F.1050307@mleia.com> <20150602203130.GU14071@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150602203130.GU14071@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Liam Girdwood , Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Charles Keepax , Lars-Peter Clausen , Axel Lin , patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 02.06.2015 23:31, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 11:18:23PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >> On 02.06.2015 22:41, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 02:09:15AM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > >>>> @@ -1783,18 +1783,13 @@ static int wm8903_gpio_direction_in(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset) >>>> { >>>> struct wm8903_priv *wm8903 = gpio_to_wm8903(chip); >>>> unsigned int mask, val; >>>> - int ret; >>>> >>>> mask = WM8903_GPn_FN_MASK | WM8903_GPn_DIR_MASK; >>>> val = (WM8903_GPn_FN_GPIO_INPUT << WM8903_GPn_FN_SHIFT) | >>>> WM8903_GPn_DIR; >>>> >>>> - ret = regmap_update_bits(wm8903->regmap, >>>> - WM8903_GPIO_CONTROL_1 + offset, mask, val); >>>> - if (ret < 0) >>>> - return ret; >>>> - >>>> - return 0; >>>> + return regmap_update_bits(wm8903->regmap, >>>> + WM8903_GPIO_CONTROL_1 + offset, mask, val); >>>> } >>>> >>>> static int wm8903_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset) > >>> This appears to be an unrelated coding style change. > >> this particular patch is named "simplify gpiolib callbacks". > >> Do you prefer to separate the change here in .direction_in >> implementation from the rest? > > It doesn't appear to make any changes related to boolean variables > (AFAICT it's just removing the ret variable) so it shouldn't be in a > change about boolean variables. > Okay, will split the change then. -- With best wishes, Vladimir