On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:12:08AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
On 2/21/20 4:47 PM, Ladislav Michl wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:09:16PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
On 2/18/20 7:48 PM, Ladislav Michl wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:35:47PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
On 2/18/20 7:21 PM, Ladislav Michl wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:28:25PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > On 2/17/20 10:38 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >> If the gpios are probed after this driver (e.g. if they >> come from an i2c expander) there is no need to print an >> error message. >> >> Signed-off-by: H. Nikolaus Schaller hns@goldelico.com >> --- >> drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c | 8 ++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c >> index edc5016f46f1..cea58d0cb457 100644 >> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c >> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c >> @@ -205,14 +205,18 @@ static int palmas_usb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> palmas_usb->id_gpiod = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "id", >> GPIOD_IN); >> - if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod)) { >> + if (PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod) == -EPROBE_DEFER) { >> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
Here we returned...
hmm. you better to suggest the result of cocci script to understand why it is matter.
You can browse similar fixes online :) https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/?qt=g...
As you commented, please share the result of cocci or checkpatch warning. It is simple to finish this discussion.
What is happening here? Do we really need tools to see the obvious? See for example commit 09971adc33b ("staging: iio: addac: Remove unnecessary else after return"). Running script mentioned in above commit with "[PATCH v3] extcon: palmas: hide error messages if gpio returns" applied gives: ~/src/linux$ spatch -sp_file s.cocci -in_place drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c init_defs_builtins: /usr/lib/coccinelle/standard.h HANDLING: drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c diff = --- drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c +++ /tmp/cocci-output-67907-55371b-extcon-palmas.c @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int palmas_usb_probe(struct platf GPIOD_IN); if (PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod) == -EPROBE_DEFER) { return -EPROBE_DEFER; - } else if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod)) { + } if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod)) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get id gpio\n"); return PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod); } @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static int palmas_usb_probe(struct platf GPIOD_IN); if (PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod) == -EPROBE_DEFER) { return -EPROBE_DEFER; - } else if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod)) { + } if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod)) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get vbus gpio\n"); return PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod); }
That's why I wrote previously: "Then it is matter of time it triggers someones cocci script pointing to else after return." Linux git history proves there are people running such a scripts and results of such a scripts gets applied.
I do not care too much, you are the one adding more work for yourself ;-)
ladis