Am 17.06.2015 um 20:41 schrieb Brian Norris:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 11:10:54PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Don't return a obfuscated null pointer using ERR_PTR(0).
>> If the no device is found clearly return -ENODEV.
>> This makes the code more clear and matches the comment
>> of doc_probe_device().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <rich...@nod.at>
>> ---
>
> Have you tested this patch?
nah, I don't own such a device.
>> drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c | 16 ++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c b/drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c
>> index 5e67b4a..630e29a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c
>> @@ -1902,7 +1902,7 @@ doc_probe_device(struct docg3_cascade *cascade, int
>> floor, struct device *dev)
>> chip_id = doc_register_readw(docg3, DOC_CHIPID);
>> chip_id_inv = doc_register_readw(docg3, DOC_CHIPID_INV);
>>
>> - ret = 0;
>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>> if (chip_id != (u16)(~chip_id_inv)) {
>> goto nomem4;
>> }
>> @@ -2068,13 +2068,10 @@ static int __init docg3_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>> mtd = doc_probe_device(cascade, floor, dev);
>> if (IS_ERR(mtd)) {
>> ret = PTR_ERR(mtd);
>> - goto err_probe;
>> - }
>> - if (!mtd) {
>> - if (floor == 0)
>> - goto notfound;
>> - else
>> + if (ret == -ENODEV && floor == 0)
>
> I think you might have changed the logic when refactoring here. I think
> the right refactoring would be the following, no?
>
> if (ret == -ENODEV && floor != 0)
> continue;
> else
> goto err_probe;
>
You are right, the logic changed. ;-\
Please drop this patch, I'll resend it for 4.3.
Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
