| Message ID | a9a25cd5775ba4c76d47e8b66934e470f58d9e72.1510999558.git.arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 04:25:08PM +0530, Arvind Yadav wrote: > The platform_get_irq() function returns negative if an error occurs. > zero or positive number on success. platform_get_irq() error checking > for zero is not correct. > > Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com> > --- > changes in v2: > Return keypad->irq insted of -ENXIO. > changes in v3 : > Add failure case '<= 0' instead of '< 0'. IRQ0 is not valid. > > drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c > index f77b295..01788a7 100644 > --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c > +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c > @@ -257,8 +257,8 @@ static int ep93xx_keypad_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > } > > keypad->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > - if (!keypad->irq) { > - err = -ENXIO; > + if (keypad->irq <= 0) { > + err = keypad->irq; Argh, so what will happen if you return with keypad->irq == 0? Can you please stop and consider what exactly you are doing before churning patches like crazy? > goto failed_free; > } > > -- > 2.7.4 > Thanks.
Hi Dmitry, On Sunday 19 November 2017 12:00 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 04:25:08PM +0530, Arvind Yadav wrote: >> The platform_get_irq() function returns negative if an error occurs. >> zero or positive number on success. platform_get_irq() error checking >> for zero is not correct. >> >> Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com> >> --- >> changes in v2: >> Return keypad->irq insted of -ENXIO. >> changes in v3 : >> Add failure case '<= 0' instead of '< 0'. IRQ0 is not valid. >> >> drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c >> index f77b295..01788a7 100644 >> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c >> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c >> @@ -257,8 +257,8 @@ static int ep93xx_keypad_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> } >> >> keypad->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); >> - if (!keypad->irq) { >> - err = -ENXIO; >> + if (keypad->irq <= 0) { >> + err = keypad->irq; > Argh, so what will happen if you return with keypad->irq == 0? Can you > please stop and consider what exactly you are doing before churning > patches like crazy? Sorry for troubling you, I am sending updated patch of this( version - v4). If you are ok with v4. Then I will send other patch. Thanks, >> goto failed_free; >> } >> >> -- >> 2.7.4 >> > Thanks. >
diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c index f77b295..01788a7 100644 --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c @@ -257,8 +257,8 @@ static int ep93xx_keypad_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) } keypad->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); - if (!keypad->irq) { - err = -ENXIO; + if (keypad->irq <= 0) { + err = keypad->irq; goto failed_free; }
The platform_get_irq() function returns negative if an error occurs. zero or positive number on success. platform_get_irq() error checking for zero is not correct. Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com> --- changes in v2: Return keypad->irq insted of -ENXIO. changes in v3 : Add failure case '<= 0' instead of '< 0'. IRQ0 is not valid. drivers/input/keyboard/ep93xx_keypad.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)