From 71928b3a4613f01444ff07d8693baac69c608731 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthias Beyer Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:55:14 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Staging: bcm: Fixed indention for inner if-block 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 Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- 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 4c7f5182709..ac45ead1032 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/bcm/DDRInit.c +++ b/drivers/staging/bcm/DDRInit.c @@ -1216,11 +1216,11 @@ 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; -- 2.46.0