On 05/04/2015 03:49 PM, Krzysztof Kozłowski wrote: > 2015-05-04 15:45 GMT+09:00 Chanwoo Choi <[email protected]>: >> On 04/29/2015 07:58 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> Clean up the max77693 private header file by removing: >>> 1. Left-overs from previous way of interrupt handling (driver uses >>> regmap_irq_chip). >>> 2. Unused members of struct 'max77693_dev' related to interrupts in >>> extcon driver. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c | 4 ---- >>> include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h | 8 -------- >>> 2 files changed, 12 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c >>> b/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c >>> index a66bec8f6252..760e1e2cc1ce 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c >>> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c >>> @@ -1218,10 +1218,6 @@ static int max77693_muic_probe(struct >>> platform_device *pdev) >>> irq_src = MUIC_INT3; >>> break; >>> } >>> - >>> - if (irq_src < MAX77693_IRQ_GROUP_NR) >>> - info->max77693->irq_masks_cur[irq_src] >>> - = init_data[i].data; >>> } >> >> When removing the unused statement, I think you better to remove it as >> following: >> because 'enum max77693_irq_source irq_src' is not used. > > Yes, you're right. Actually some time ago I removed all of this: > extcon: max77693: Remove left-over code after switching to regmap irq chip > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1410.2/03403.html > >> >> for (i = 0; i < num_init_data; i++) { >> - enum max77693_irq_source irq_src >> - = MAX77693_IRQ_GROUP_NR; >> - >> regmap_write(info->max77693->regmap_muic, >> init_data[i].addr, >> init_data[i].data); >> - >> - switch (init_data[i].addr) { >> - case MAX77693_MUIC_REG_INTMASK1: >> - irq_src = MUIC_INT1; >> - break; >> - case MAX77693_MUIC_REG_INTMASK2: >> - irq_src = MUIC_INT2; >> - break; >> - case MAX77693_MUIC_REG_INTMASK3: >> - irq_src = MUIC_INT3; >> - break; >> - } >> - >> - if (irq_src < MAX77693_IRQ_GROUP_NR) >> - info->max77693->irq_masks_cur[irq_src] >> - = init_data[i].data; >> } >> >> [snip] >> >> Except for upper comment, Looks good to me. > > Okay, I'll do as you suggested and add your ack (in case it will go > through some other tree).
I'm wondering the merge confilct if this patch will be merged on other tree. Because extcon-max77693.c was already modified on extcon-next branch. So, If the base commit of this patch is different, there are potential merge conflict. Thanks, Chanwoo Choi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
