On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 04:35:45PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org> > Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:41:18 +0200 > > > If rate is the same as set it's correct case. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org> > > --- > > Based on net-next/master > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c > > index e4d6edf..dbe9167 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c > > @@ -841,7 +841,7 @@ int cpdma_chan_set_rate(struct cpdma_chan *ch, u32 rate) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > if (ch->rate == rate) > > - return rate; > > + return 0; > > Looking at the one and only caller of this function, cpsw_ndo_set_tx_maxrate, > it > makes sure this can never, ever, happen. In current circumstances yes, it will never happen. But I caught it while adding related code and better return 0 if upper caller doesn't have such check. Suppose that cpdma module is responsible for itself and if it's critical I can send this patch along with whole related series.
> > So I would instead remove this check completely since it can never trigger. -- Regards, Ivan Khoronzhuk
