Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] toshiba_acpi: Remove unnecessary checks and returns in HCI/SCI functions

[Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:23:49PM -0600, Azael Avalos wrote:
> Hi Darren,
> 
> 2015-08-05 14:21 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>:
> >> @@ -1131,14 +1055,10 @@ static int toshiba_usb_three_set(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev, u32 state)
> >>
> >>       result = sci_write(dev, SCI_USB_THREE, state);
> >>       sci_close(dev);
> >> -     if (result == TOS_FAILURE) {
> >> +     if (result == TOS_FAILURE)
> >>               pr_err("ACPI call to set USB 3 failed\n");
> >> -             return -EIO;
> >> -     } else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) {
> >> +     else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED)
> >>               return -ENODEV;
> >> -     } else if (result == TOS_INPUT_DATA_ERROR) {
> >> -             return -EIO;
> >> -     }
> >>
> >>       return (result == TOS_SUCCESS || result == TOS_SUCCESS2) 0 : -EIO;
> >
> > Hrm... the above line cause patch application failure via git (note the
> > missing ? before the '0 : -EIO;'). This never existed upstream so far as
> > I can determine.
> 
> I've spotted that while compile-checking my changes locally, but I might
> have sent you the wrong patch here, I'll double check in the future to avoid
> these embarrassments :-(
> 
> >
> > It applied with some fuzz manually, but I'm concerned about how this
> > happened.  Did you have a dirty tree when you prepared these patches
> > perhaps?
> 
> This is weird, all these patches applied cleanly on my local copy, I'll fetch
> a new copy from your "for-next" tree and check w/ it.

Please verify what I have in "testing", if that's right, then we're good. It has
already passed my checks and 0day's.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center