[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190403153115.GA22624@kadam>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:31:15 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [5/7] cpufreq/pasemi: Checking implementation of
pas_cpufreq_cpu_init()
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 04:23:54PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ static int pas_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >
> > cpu = of_get_cpu_node(policy->cpu, NULL);
> >
> > + of_node_put(cpu);
> > if (!cpu)
> > goto out;
>
> Can the statement “return -ENODEV” be nicer as exception handling
> in the if branch of this source code place?
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/pasemi-cpufreq.c?id=bf97b82f37c6d90e16de001d0659644c57fa490d#n137
>
Why am I only receiving only one side of this conversation?
I don't know why you're responding to... It's not required to fix/change
unrelated style choices. If people want, they can just focus on their
own thing.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists