On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:11:24PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 2:35 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:40:26PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> > > > > > > This function can fail if regmap operations fail so check its return > > > value in probe(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c > > > index eb9dde4095a9..e0011d3cf61b 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c > > > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c > > > @@ -791,6 +791,8 @@ static int s5m_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, info); > > > > > > ret = s5m8767_rtc_init_reg(info); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > > You leak I2C device. > > > > Yes, the next patch fixes it but I changed the order. Actually this > can be moved after 3/3 with no conflicts when applying.
Yes, but for bisecting and any backporting (e.g. with autosel) the order is quite important. Please resend with new order. Best regards, Krzysztof
