[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yk66wHWlMg3QLy6u@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:19:44 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] device property: Allow error pointer to be passed
to fwnode APIs
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 08:05:23PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
...
> > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode))
> > + return -ENOENT;
> > +
> > ret = fwnode_call_int_op(fwnode, get_reference_args, prop, nargs_prop,
> > nargs, index, args);
> > + if (ret == 0)
> > + return ret;
> >
> > - if (ret < 0 && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode) &&
> > - !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode->secondary))
> > - ret = fwnode_call_int_op(fwnode->secondary, get_reference_args,
> > - prop, nargs_prop, nargs, index, args);
> > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode->secondary))
> > + return -ENOENT;
>
> Doesn't this mean you overwrite any return code != 0 with -ENOENT?
> Is this intended?
Indeed, it would shadow the error code.
So, it should go with
if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode->secondary))
return ret;
then.
> In any case:
> Tested-by: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Thanks!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists