On 05/Mar/2019 19:32, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 3/5/19 12:23 PM, Ismael Luceno Cortes wrote:
> > Cosmetic change. Any call to the recover function would need to do the
> > same check afterwards, so it's sensible to make it part of the function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ismael Luceno
> > ---
> >
> >
On 3/5/19 12:23 PM, Ismael Luceno Cortes wrote:
> Cosmetic change. Any call to the recover function would need to do the
> same check afterwards, so it's sensible to make it part of the function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ismael Luceno
> ---
>
> Notes:
> Changes since v1:
> - Rebased on top of
Cosmetic change. Any call to the recover function would need to do the
same check afterwards, so it's sensible to make it part of the function.
Signed-off-by: Ismael Luceno
---
Notes:
Changes since v1:
- Rebased on top of patch 1050650 ("i2c: rcar_i2c: Add Gen3 SoC support")
- Expla
3 matches
Mail list logo