Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl: Fix a wrong judgment in fsl_udc_probe()
From: Markus Elfring <hidden>
Date: 2020-04-10 07:34:34
Also in:
kernel-janitors, linux-usb, lkml
If the function "platform_get_irq()" failed, the negative value returned will not be detected here, including "-EPROBE_DEFER",
I suggest to adjust this change description. Wording alternative: The negative return value (which could eventually be “-EPROBE_DEFER”) will not be detected here from a failed call of the function “platform_get_irq”.
which causes the application to fail to get the correct error message.
Will another fine-tuning become relevant also for this wording?
Thus it must be fixed.
Wording alternative: Thus adjust the error detection and corresponding exception handling.
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <redacted> Signed-off-by: Shengju Zhang <redacted>
How do you think about to add the tags “Fixes”, “Link” and “Reported-by”? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=c0cc271173b2e1c2d8d0ceaef14e4dfa79eefc0d#n584 usb: gadget: fsl_udc_core: Checking for a failed platform_get_irq() call in fsl_udc_probe() https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/36341bb1-1e00-5eb1-d032-60dcc614ddaf@web.de/ (local) https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/8/442 …
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c@@ -2441,8 +2441,8 @@ static int fsl_udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) udc_controller->max_ep = (dccparams & DCCPARAMS_DEN_MASK) * 2; udc_controller->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); - if (!udc_controller->irq) { - ret = -ENODEV; + if (udc_controller->irq <= 0) {
Will such a failure predicate need any more clarification? How does this check fit to the current software documentation?
+ ret = udc_controller->irq ? : -ENODEV;
Will it be clearer to specify values for all cases in such a conditional operator (instead of leaving one case empty)? Regards, Markus