On 6/26/2023 11:54 PM, Erez wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 21:04, Jacob Keller <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com> wrote:
>> +static int do_get_pins_cfg(clockid_t clkid, int cmdc, char *cmdv[])
>> +{
>> + struct ptp_pin_desc pin_desc;
>> + unsigned int index;
>> + int n_pins;
>> +
>> + if (clkid >= 0) {
>> + pr_warning("The provided clock is not a PHC device.");
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + n_pins = phc_number_pins(clkid);
>> + if (n_pins == 0) {
>> + pr_notice("device has no configurable pins");
>> + return (0);
>>
>
> For the record, it is not that important.
> Richard can fix it before applying.
> I just like consistency.
> Above you return "0"
> And here "(0)"
>
> Erez
>
Honestly not even sure where the difference came from..
Thanks,
Jake
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
