[PATCH 1/2] lp3971: remove unnecessary ret value checking in lp3971_i2c_write()

[PATCH 1/2] lp3971: remove unnecessary ret value checking in lp3971_i2c_write()

[Axel Lin]

i2c_smbus_write_byte_data() returns zero or negative value,
therefore no need to check if ret is greater than zero or not.

Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/regulator/lp3971.c |    8 +-------
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/lp3971.c b/drivers/regulator/lp3971.c
index 8ae3732..d4d9822 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/lp3971.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/lp3971.c
@@ -387,15 +387,9 @@ static int lp3971_i2c_read(struct i2c_client *i2c, char reg, int count,
 static int lp3971_i2c_write(struct i2c_client *i2c, char reg, int count,
 	const u16 *src)
 {
-	int ret;
-
 	if (count != 1)
 		return -EIO;
-	ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(i2c, reg, *src);
-	if (ret >= 0)
-		return 0;
-
-	return ret;
+	return i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(i2c, reg, *src);
 }
 
 static u8 lp3971_reg_read(struct lp3971 *lp3971, u8 reg)
-- 
1.5.4.3

Re: [PATCH 1/2] lp3971: remove unnecessary ret value checking in lp3971_i2c_write()

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 11:40:38AM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> i2c_smbus_write_byte_data() returns zero or negative value,
> therefore no need to check if ret is greater than zero or not.

> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@gmail.com>

Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>

but can I once more renew my request that you make some effort to
provide subject lines for your patches which are consistent with the
standard used for the area of the kernel you're submitting to?

Re: [PATCH 1/2] lp3971: remove unnecessary ret value checking in lp3971_i2c_write()

[Axel Lin]

hi Mark,

2010/8/5 Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 11:40:38AM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
>> i2c_smbus_write_byte_data() returns zero or negative value,
>> therefore no need to check if ret is greater than zero or not.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@gmail.com>
>
> Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
>
> but can I once more renew my request that you make some effort to
> provide subject lines for your patches which are consistent with the
> standard used for the area of the kernel you're submitting to?
>

I think we have communication problem.
I thought the subject "[PATCH 1/2] lp3971: remove unnecessary ret
value checking in lp3971_i2c_write()"
is pretty clear.
Or do you mean something else?

Regards,
Axel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] lp3971: remove unnecessary ret value checking in lp3971_i2c_write()

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:22:13PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> 2010/8/5 Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>:

> > but can I once more renew my request that you make some effort to
> > provide subject lines for your patches which are consistent with the
> > standard used for the area of the kernel you're submitting to?

> I think we have communication problem.
> I thought the subject "[PATCH 1/2] lp3971: remove unnecessary ret
> value checking in lp3971_i2c_write()"
> is pretty clear.
> Or do you mean something else?

In this case pretty much every regulator API patch has a subject line
starting "regulator: " but none of your patches do this, you have
created your own style which you use over all your patches.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] lp3971: remove unnecessary ret value checking in lp3971_i2c_write()

[Axel Lin]

2010/8/5 Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:22:13PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
>> 2010/8/5 Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>:
>
>> > but can I once more renew my request that you make some effort to
>> > provide subject lines for your patches which are consistent with the
>> > standard used for the area of the kernel you're submitting to?
>
>> I think we have communication problem.
>> I thought the subject "[PATCH 1/2] lp3971: remove unnecessary ret
>> value checking in lp3971_i2c_write()"
>> is pretty clear.
>> Or do you mean something else?
>
> In this case pretty much every regulator API patch has a subject line
> starting "regulator: " but none of your patches do this, you have
> created your own style which you use over all your patches.
>

Got your point now. Will fix it next time.

Thanks,
Axel