Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: exynos5: remove some dead code | From | Peter Rosin <> | Date | Thu, 10 May 2018 21:16:28 +0200 |
| |
On 2018-05-10 10:36, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > On 09.05.2018 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote: >> The else branch cannot be taken as i will always equal num. >> Get rid of the whole construct. >> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> >> --- >> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c | 12 +----------- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c >> index 12ec8484e653..a2cbc779c33a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c >> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c >> @@ -727,17 +727,7 @@ static int exynos5_i2c_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, >> goto out; >> } >> >> - if (i == num) { >> - ret = num; >> - } else { >> - /* Only one message, cannot access the device */ >> - if (i == 1) >> - ret = -EREMOTEIO; >> - else >> - ret = i; >> - >> - dev_warn(i2c->dev, "xfer message failed\n"); >> - } >> + ret = num; >> >> out: >> clk_disable(i2c->clk); > > You can go further and remove "out:" label, use break instead, and at > the end use "return (i == num) ? num : ret;" or sth similar. > > With this change you can add: > > Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
But then the patch wouldn't be so obviously safe. If I would write a function equivalent to the original function, I think I'd write something like:
static int exynos5_i2c_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num) { struct exynos5_i2c *i2c = adap->algo_data; int i, ret;
if (i2c->suspended) { dev_err(i2c->dev, "HS-I2C is not initialized.\n"); return -EIO; }
ret = clk_enable(i2c->clk); if (ret) return ret;
for (i = 0; !ret && i < num; i++) ret = exynos5_i2c_xfer_msg(i2c, msgs + i, i == num - 1);
clk_disable(i2c->clk);
return ret ?: num; }
And I think that is safe because I don't see any possibility for exynos_i2c_xfer_msg to return anything but zero success or negative errors. Since I can only compile-test, so I do not feel all that good about going further than I did.
But if you or anyone can test the above function, feel free to make a patch out of it. I don't care enough to make a bunch of iterations on these trivialities. I just spotted dead code and dumb initializers while looking for other things. So, take it or leave it. I.e. it was just a couple of drive-by patches.
Cheers, Peter
| |