| Message ID | 1500543738-9696-3-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thursday 20 July 2017 03:12 PM, Keerthy wrote: > Currently davinci_gpio_irq_setup return value is ignored. Handle the > return value appropriately. Linus, Any comments on this? Sorry if i pinged too soon. The rest 2 of this series were pulled by you. So just wanted to check on this one if you had specific comments. Regards, Keerthy > > Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> > --- > drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c > index 27499ec..d6fb1ce 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c > @@ -237,7 +237,10 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > goto err; > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, chips); > - davinci_gpio_irq_setup(pdev); > + ret = davinci_gpio_irq_setup(pdev); > + if (ret) > + goto err; > + > return 0; > > err: >
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote: > On Thursday 20 July 2017 03:12 PM, Keerthy wrote: >> Currently davinci_gpio_irq_setup return value is ignored. Handle the >> return value appropriately. > > Linus, > > Any comments on this? Sorry if i pinged too soon. The rest 2 of this > series were pulled by you. So just wanted to check on this one if you > had specific comments. I got the impression you would send this in a series with a new patch requested by Johan. Do we have consensus that this patch should be applied as-is? Yours, Linus Walleij
On Monday 07 August 2017 05:42 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote: >> On Thursday 20 July 2017 03:12 PM, Keerthy wrote: >>> Currently davinci_gpio_irq_setup return value is ignored. Handle the >>> return value appropriately. >> >> Linus, >> >> Any comments on this? Sorry if i pinged too soon. The rest 2 of this >> series were pulled by you. So just wanted to check on this one if you >> had specific comments. > > I got the impression you would send this in a series with a new > patch requested by Johan. > > Do we have consensus that this patch should be applied as-is? IIUC a separate patch is needed to implement remove function. This can still be independent of that. https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1450395.html > > Yours, > Linus Walleij >
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote: > Currently davinci_gpio_irq_setup return value is ignored. Handle the > return value appropriately. > > Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> Patch applied. Yours, Linus Walleij
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c index 27499ec..d6fb1ce 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c @@ -237,7 +237,10 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) goto err; platform_set_drvdata(pdev, chips); - davinci_gpio_irq_setup(pdev); + ret = davinci_gpio_irq_setup(pdev); + if (ret) + goto err; + return 0; err:
Currently davinci_gpio_irq_setup return value is ignored. Handle the return value appropriately. Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> --- drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)