[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200903182130.ugsbzjyq3yc56mdv@medion>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 19:21:30 +0100
From: Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: media: atomisp: Fix error path in lm3554_probe()
> You're right. I wonder if there is really any need for the
> lm3554_gpio_uninit() function at all? It's basically the same as
> lm3554_gpio_init() except for the order of function calls. Probably
> we could just rename lm3554_gpio_init() to something like
> lm3554_gpio_set_default() and use it in both the probe() and remove
> functions()...
I think you probably also don't want to return error values from
lm3554_gpio_uninit() as it is only called on module removal, so it'd
probably make more sense to just print a warning and carry on. I'll do
this as a separate patch and send it to the list, though.
v2 to follow...
>
> But I don't know the code and can't test it so let's leave that for
> another day.
>
> We still do need to clean up if atomisp_register_i2c_module() fails
> though, and the timer as well so could you resend a v2?
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists