Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1311716 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] USB: serial: cp210x: Switch to new 16-bit register access functions.

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] USB: serial: cp210x: Switch to new 16-bit  register access functions. Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> - 2016-01-18 18:50 +0100

#1311716 — Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] USB: serial: cp210x: Switch to new 16-bit register access functions.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 06:22:29PM +0000, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-usb-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-usb-
> > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Martyn Welch
> > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 11:44
> > To: Konstantin Shkolnyy; johan@kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] USB: serial: cp210x: Switch to new 16-bit register
> > access functions.
> ...
> 
> > > @@ -697,14 +685,11 @@ static unsigned int
> > cp210x_quantise_baudrate(unsigned int baud)
> > >
> > >   static int cp210x_open(struct tty_struct *tty, struct usb_serial_port *port)
> > >   {
> > > -	int result;
> > > +	int err;

Why rename the return value? I prefer ret over err, but there's no need
to change such things for code that's already in place.

> > >
> > > -	result = cp210x_set_config_single(port, CP210X_IFC_ENABLE,
> > > -
> > 	UART_ENABLE);
> > > -	if (result) {
> > > -		dev_err(&port->dev, "%s - Unable to enable UART\n",
> > __func__);
> > > -		return result;
> > > -	}
> > > +	err = cp210x_write_u16_reg(port, CP210X_IFC_ENABLE,
> > UART_ENABLE);
> > > +	if (err)
> > > +		return err;
> > 
> > Any reason for dropping the error message?
> 
> I already print a message if the underlying usb_control_msg fails, so
> it should be covered there.

Yes, but it's an unrelated change. The previous error message was more
informative.

Thanks,
Johan

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web