[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220422160931.6a4eca42@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 16:09:31 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: cgel.zte@...il.com
Cc: krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org, davem@...emloft.net,
lv.ruyi@....com.cn, yashsri421@...il.com, sameo@...ux.intel.com,
cuissard@...vell.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFC: nfcmrvl: fix error check return value of
irq_of_parse_and_map()
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:46:05 +0000 cgel.zte@...il.com wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/nfc/nfcmrvl/i2c.c b/drivers/nfc/nfcmrvl/i2c.c
> index ceef81d93ac9..7dcc97707363 100644
> --- a/drivers/nfc/nfcmrvl/i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/nfc/nfcmrvl/i2c.c
> @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static int nfcmrvl_i2c_parse_dt(struct device_node *node,
> pdata->irq_polarity = IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING;
>
> ret = irq_of_parse_and_map(node, 0);
> - if (ret < 0) {
> + if (!ret) {
> pr_err("Unable to get irq, error: %d\n", ret);
> return ret;
If ret is guaranteed to be 0 in this branch now, why print it,
and how is it okay to return it from this function on error?
The usual low quality patch from the CGEL team :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists