From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 13:25:25 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 05/12] arm64: psci: support unsigned return values
In-Reply-To: <1431085004-32743-6-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
References: <1431085004-32743-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <1431085004-32743-6-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20150511122525.GA2187@red-moon>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:36:37PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:

[...]

> -static int psci_get_version(void)
> +static u32 psci_get_version(void)
>  {
> -	int err;
> -
> -	err = invoke_psci_fn(PSCI_0_2_FN_PSCI_VERSION, 0, 0, 0);
> -	return err;
> +	return invoke_psci_fn(PSCI_0_2_FN_PSCI_VERSION, 0, 0, 0);
>  }
>  
>  static int psci_cpu_suspend(struct psci_power_state state,
> @@ -295,23 +292,13 @@ static int __init psci_probe(void)
>  {
>  	int ver = psci_get_version();

Is there a reason to keep ver as an int ?

Other than that the patch looks fine.

Lorenzo