Hello again. :-)
Now, 2 patches to the different files shouldn't have and identical subject!
And the patch
subject should reflect the exact patch locus, e.g. "sata_highbank: delete
redundant printing
of return value".
On 3/13/21 10:47 AM, Wang Qing wrote:
> platform_get_irq() has already checked and printed the return value,
> the printing here is nothing special, it is not necessary at all.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Qing <wangq...@vivo.com>
> ---
> drivers/ata/sata_highbank.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_highbank.c b/drivers/ata/sata_highbank.c
> index 64b2ef1..a43d42a
> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_highbank.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_highbank.c
> @@ -469,10 +469,8 @@ static int ahci_highbank_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> }
>
> irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> - if (irq <= 0) {
> - dev_err(dev, "no irq\n");
> + if (irq <= 0)
> return -EINVAL;
> - }
Again, this code has more serious issue: it breaks deferred probing by
overriding the result to -EINVAL...
MBR, Sergei
