From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755863AbaJWQAr (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:00:47 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]:50545 "EHLO mail-la0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751768AbaJWQAp (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:00:45 -0400 Message-ID: <54492629.7030501@cogentembedded.com> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:00:41 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov Organization: Cogent Embedded User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guenter Roeck , netdev@vger.kernel.org CC: "David S. Miller" , Florian Fainelli , Andrew Lunn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] net: dsa: Report known silicon revisions for Marvell 88E6060 References: <1414037002-25528-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1414037002-25528-3-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <5448F9B4.9010209@cogentembedded.com> <5449008C.4050505@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <5449008C.4050505@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/23/2014 05:20 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> Report known silicon revisions when probing Marvell 88E6060 switches. >>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck >>> --- >>> drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c | 5 ++++- >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c >>> index 05b0ca3..c29aebe 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c >>> @@ -69,8 +69,11 @@ static char *mv88e6060_probe(struct device *host_dev, >>> int sw_addr) >>> >>> ret = mdiobus_read(bus, sw_addr + REG_PORT(0), 0x03); >>> if (ret >= 0) { >>> - ret &= 0xfff0; >>> if (ret == 0x0600) >>> + return "Marvell 88E6060 (A0)"; >>> + if (ret == 0x0601 || ret == 0x0602) >> *else* *if*. >>> + return "Marvell 88E6060 (B0)"; >>> + if ((ret & 0xfff0) == 0x0600) >> Likewise? > The if case returns, so the else would just introduce an unnecessary > additional level of indentation. Not really. > I think nowadays even checkpatch > complains about an unnecessary else after return. You're right about the *return* though. I should have stayed silent. > Thanks, > Guenter WBR, Sergei