[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aa7006c9-8b83-5f30-86a6-8d60d290f824@web.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:30:11 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Tang Bin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc: Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Shengju Zhang <zhangshengju@...s.chinamobile.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: usb: gadget: fsl: Fix a wrong judgment in fsl_udc_probe()
> Hardware experiments show that the negative return value is not just "-EPROBE_DEFER".
How much will this specific error code influence our understanding
of the discussed software situation?
>>> + ret = udc_controller->irq ? : -ENODEV;
>> Will it be clearer to specify values for all cases in such a conditional operator
>> (instead of leaving one case empty)?
>
> I don't know what you mean of "instead of leaving one case empty".
I suggest to reconsider also the proposed specification “… ? : …”.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists