[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZcUqWy34Z_QGutNn@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 21:24:11 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 19/24] gpio: remove unnecessary checks from
gpiod_to_chip()
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 08:17:14PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 6:39 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 10:59:15AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
..
> > > - if (!desc || IS_ERR(desc) || !desc->gdev || !desc->gdev->chip)
> > > + if (!desc || IS_ERR(desc))
> >
> > IS_ERR_OR_NULL()
>
> Ah, good point. It's a small nit though so I'll fix it when applying
> barring some major objections for the rest.
>
> > > return -EINVAL;
thinking more about it, shouldn't we return an actual error to the caller which
is in desc?
if (!desc)
return -EINVAL;
if (IS_ERR(desc))
return PTR_ERR(desc);
?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists