On 03/05/2019 2:19 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Fabien Dessenne wrote:

quoted

The second parameter of devm_add_action_or_reset() shall be a function,
not a function address.

Signed-off-by: Fabien Dessenne <redacted>
---
  drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c b/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
index 9e33165..8748d4d 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c

@@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ static int rmi_setup_irq_domain(struct hid_device *hdev)
  	if (!hdata->domain)
  		return -ENOMEM;
  
-	ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&hdev->dev, &rmi_irq_teardown, hdata);
+	ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&hdev->dev, rmi_irq_teardown, hdata);

Why do you think this is wrong C?

Because I was not aware that both func and &func refer to the same 
function pointer.

Now I know :)