From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80368C3815B for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 07:13:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E48206B6 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 07:13:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="j+oEqsfF" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726262AbgDTHNp (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2020 03:13:45 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38386 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725815AbgDTHNp (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2020 03:13:45 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x342.google.com (mail-wm1-x342.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::342]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7941C061A0C for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x342.google.com with SMTP id h2so9742168wmb.4 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:13:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=YR76M7+QfRjvw5EtwYjnb3So/qNzKUFPYqnKSENL06s=; b=j+oEqsfFSEehYdDaMCVRO5/BEh7yOsSRL4WCMgYNU4ByUFUamd/zsXe0tGibrfu0YH K5w3ucNoA+y/Yq0Ndpa0YlTi62oODtwd9Jn8ew5HDISSFTANK3RTO6YgT6XCEjQ1ixNi lc6VJH/qJiVZk75MbmHTBv/kiswML0390oa7SG3EX6mxjQY7ZO6HL8fXWIyG10fM/xQU /E1DZgcGuK8HGwaeusM6FB+el8IttTwDpOApx+r8QzzOZOM1fJ1httF1o8g2JDuacN+o W3Spv6i1aAPIMw5lzkJMUJhKvN+svV+qBjWRXsiezEOhy7ySDLL0BRS5OuFgEfn8ChhH zSaQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=YR76M7+QfRjvw5EtwYjnb3So/qNzKUFPYqnKSENL06s=; b=c2bKUO7tJ2zeFPiuioozaKK70AKiWx9FZReKThHa3qs5Ymvq3xM8nL6dY4PGBGXBDF dGNk46yG6eXKWY6VWm6DCAsqymTtItfIyATJgi0vuoy0jovgya5TeOi0VY1qSX2h7BHG cZYpRi+tB5yv5RNYFU5Lx7Mam7QB4rYBu8ZXdBEfzl59hlkusQfr00vJ0aRag6o59GKj X+Eei2nN0/3L0rVaOfVFu1kzmH4i0xGEzH86FON1JahiB0mJwVP22QQAj8K2rqlq/Kd3 mjbT+rflEtFY8GBierOhoEIgECLK+YV3TZDZNhT8mN7vDBzGRJUCXHVYA/VvOmJTWDpl DeRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pua5OF5OPJ2t9eBdSd1VwaJV+jZSQwC/EFPbBu07c+IekO6v6PlX PTxDroSaLW5DfcNG6sWn3OqIih6J1wk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKpGsqOSTlQdF58ZanLLw569+NgUTeZDOfWsHb1HlqvPP5ipAf6ybVxjpNRRFSHD1D0SCM2kQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:61c2:: with SMTP id v185mr1356067wmb.92.1587366821384; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell ([95.149.164.107]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e15sm41773193wrt.16.2020.04.20.00.13.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 08:13:39 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Markus Elfring Cc: Tang Bin , Shengju Zhang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: asic3: Add error checking return in asic3_mfd_probe() Message-ID: <20200420071339.GG3737@dell> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 19 Apr 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > > In the function asic3_mfd_probe(), when get resource or irq > > failed, the value returned just detected and debug error message, > > but there were no error checking return. So add the right error > > checking return. > > I suggest to improve the commit message. > Would you like to adjust the patch subject? > > > > And remove the redundant 'ret = 0'. > > I propose to reconsider this interpretation of the source code here. > How do you think about to move the mentioned statement into an else branch > at the end? Could you please fix your mailer. If you do not, your replies will be lost/discounted! -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog