On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 07:12 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:

On 2017-06-08 19:36, Luis Oliveira wrote:

quoted

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.

quoted

@@ -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 [off-list ref]
Intel Finland Oy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html