Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] net: dsa: Report known silicon revisions for Marvell 88E6060

From: Sergei Shtylyov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:00:41 +0400

On 10/23/2014 05:20 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:

>>> Report known silicon revisions when probing Marvell 88E6060 switches.

>>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <[email-masked]>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c | 5 ++++-
>>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c
>>> index 05b0ca3..c29aebe 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c
>>> @@ -69,8 +69,11 @@ static char *mv88e6060_probe(struct device *host_dev,
>>> int sw_addr)
>>>
>>>       ret = mdiobus_read(bus, sw_addr + REG_PORT(0), 0x03);
>>>       if (ret >= 0) {
>>> -        ret &= 0xfff0;
>>>           if (ret == 0x0600)
>>> +            return "Marvell 88E6060 (A0)";
>>> +        if (ret == 0x0601 || ret == 0x0602)

>>     *else* *if*.

>>> +            return "Marvell 88E6060 (B0)";
>>> +        if ((ret & 0xfff0) == 0x0600)

>>     Likewise?

> The if case returns, so the else would just introduce an unnecessary
> additional level of indentation.

    Not really.

> I think nowadays even checkpatch
> complains about an unnecessary else after return.

    You're right about the *return* though. I should have stayed silent.

> Thanks,
> Guenter

WBR, Sergei