[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YLDKF32PmNP0ZDTK@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 13:46:47 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Amireddy Mallikarjuna reddy <mallikarjunax.reddy@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Marek BehĂșn <marek.behun@....cz>,
Abanoub Sameh <abanoubsameh8@...il.com>,
Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 08/28] leds: lgm-sso: Put fwnode in any case during
->probe()
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:08:00PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > @@ -734,10 +736,15 @@ static int sso_led_dt_parse(struct sso_led_priv *priv)
> > if (fw_ssoled) {
> > ret = __sso_led_dt_parse(priv, fw_ssoled);
> > if (ret)
> > - return ret;
> > + goto err_child_out;
> > }
> >
> > + fwnode_handle_put(fw_ssoled);
> > return 0;
> > +
> > +err_child_out:
> > + fwnode_handle_put(fw_ssoled);
> > + return ret;
> > }
>
> Just delete the return and you get the same effect, no? No need to
> have two exits here.
I prefer to see it clear and follow the same pattern, but if you insist, I can
change in proposed way.
Thanks for review!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists