The inner if-statement was aligned just like the outer one. Why?
This indention was introduced by
f34c488c3894968e8cdbdc3b1ed617d78315cace
which is a indention-fix patch itself. That's why I'm curious about it.
I did not merge these nested if-statements, as I don't know if I'm
destroying logical seperated checks with it.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Beyer <m...@beyermatthias.de>
---
drivers/staging/bcm/DDRInit.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/bcm/DDRInit.c b/drivers/staging/bcm/DDRInit.c
index cfaa2c1..d13cb49 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/bcm/DDRInit.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/bcm/DDRInit.c
@@ -1308,11 +1308,11 @@ int download_ddr_settings(struct bcm_mini_adapter
*Adapter)
if (!retval) {
if (bOverrideSelfRefresh && (psDDRSetting->ulRegAddress
== 0x0F007018)) {
value = (psDDRSetting->ulRegValue | (1<<8));
- if (STATUS_SUCCESS != wrmalt(Adapter,
ul_ddr_setting_load_addr,
- &value, sizeof(value))) {
- BCM_DEBUG_PRINT(Adapter, DBG_TYPE_PRINTK, 0, 0,
"%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
- break;
- }
+ if (STATUS_SUCCESS != wrmalt(Adapter,
ul_ddr_setting_load_addr,
+ &value, sizeof(value))) {
+ BCM_DEBUG_PRINT(Adapter,
DBG_TYPE_PRINTK, 0, 0, "%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
+ break;
+ }
} else {
value = psDDRSetting->ulRegValue;
--
2.0.0
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
