On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 07:12 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2017-06-08 19:36, Luis Oliveira wrote: > > complicated to review. The work here won't bring any additional work > > to > > backported fixes because is just style and reordering. > > I challenge that. If there is an old bug that existed before this > patch > that is fixed in the future after this patch has been applied, it > might > very well be hard_er_ to backport that fix to a point before this > patch > has been applied. So, what do you mean?
I asked this during review of ~v3. I don't remember what Wolfram told about it. > > > @@ -984,12 +984,12 @@ int i2c_dw_probe(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev) > > } > > > > i2c_dw_disable_int(dev); > > - r = devm_request_irq(dev->dev, dev->irq, i2c_dw_isr, > > irq_flags, > > + ret = devm_request_irq(dev->dev, dev->irq, i2c_dw_isr, > > irq_flags, > > dev_name(dev->dev), dev); > > Two extra spaces needed to align with the opening bracket. It's a bikeshedding, though it looks like v11 is needed anyway (see kbuild bot complains), thus it might be addressed as well. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
