[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0757d83b-203c-fe40-a8ac-665953d7d336@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:58:41 +0100
From: Francesco Lavra <francescolavra.fl@...il.com>
To: tangbin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>, wsa@...-dreams.de
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c:i2c-core-of:remove redundant dev_err message
On 2/26/20 11:39 AM, tangbin wrote:
> of_i2c_register_device already contains error message, so remove
> the redundant dev_err message
>
> Signed-off-by: tangbin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c | 6 +-----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c
> index 6787c1f71..7b0a786d3 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c
> @@ -103,9 +103,7 @@ void of_i2c_register_devices(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
>
> client = of_i2c_register_device(adap, node);
> if (IS_ERR(client)) {
> - dev_err(&adap->dev,
> - "Failed to create I2C device for %pOF\n",
> - node);
> + return PTR_ERR(client);
This looks like an unrelated (and wrong) change. Why would you alter the
semantics of of_i2c_register_devices()? Besides, this function doesn't
have a return value.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists