On 07/05/2015 09:08 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
<snip>
> Looking pretty good to me, though I'd like to give Peter time to take
> another look and give his reviewed-by etc.
>
> One really minor suggestion from me...
> <snip>
>> +
>> +static int opt3001_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> + const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
>> +
>> + struct iio_dev *iio;
>> + struct opt3001 *opt;
>> + int irq = client->irq;
>> + int ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + iio = devm_iio_device_alloc(dev, sizeof(*opt));
>> + if (!iio)
> return -ENOMEM; would be cleaner, then there is no need to initialize
> ret either.
Hi Jonathan,
thanks for looking at my code. While we are waiting for additional feedback
would you
like me to go ahead and re-spin/re-test the patch with your latest suggestion?
Regards,
--
Andreas Dannenberg
Texas Instruments Inc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
