On 13/08/19 11:55 AM, Roger Quadros wrote:
On 13/08/2019 07:35, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
On 08/08/19 7:25 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:
Nishka,
On 08/08/2019 10:40, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
In function sysc_check_children, there is an if-statement checking
whether the value returned by function sysc_check_one_child is non-zero.
However, sysc_check_one_child always returns 0, and hence this check is
not needed. Hence remove this if-block.
Signed-off-by: Nishka Dasgupta <nishkadg.li...@gmail.com>
---
drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c b/drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c
index e6deabd8305d..bc8082ae7cb5 100644
--- a/drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c
+++ b/drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c
@@ -637,8 +637,6 @@ static int sysc_check_children(struct sysc *ddata)
for_each_child_of_node(ddata->dev->of_node, child) {
error = sysc_check_one_child(ddata, child);
- if (error)
- return error;
We cannot assume that sysc_check_one_child() will never return error in the
future.
If it can never return an error then why does it have an int return type?
I'm not sure why it has an int return type, unfortunately. This is the function
in its entirety:
static int sysc_check_one_child(struct sysc *ddata,
struct device_node *np)
{
const char *name;
name = of_get_property(np, "ti,hwmods", NULL);
if (name)
dev_warn(ddata->dev, "really a child ti,hwmods property?");
sysc_check_quirk_stdout(ddata, np);
sysc_parse_dts_quirks(ddata, np, true);
return 0;
}
I'm not sure how to understand this function. Do dev_warn() or
sysc_check_quirk_stdout() or sysc_parse_dts_quirks() cause a non-zero return
from sysc_check_one_child()? Should I drop my patch?
None of those functions return anything.
Maybe you can fix sysc_check_one_child() to return void?
I think you can retain your patch but get rid of error variable.
Okay, I'll fixup and send v2. What about sysc_check_children()? If error
variable is removed then sysc_check_children also only returns 0.
Thanking you,
Nishka
Thanking you,
Nishka
}
return 0;
