On 2014-06-16 11:44, Nikita Yushchenko wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c
b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c
index 495b6fb..666c03e 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c
@@ -111,11 +111,11 @@ static int ehci_hcd_grlib_probe(struct
platform_device *op)
hcd->rsrc_start = res.start;
hcd->rsrc_len = resource_size(&res);
- irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(dn, 0);
- if (irq == NO_IRQ) {
- dev_err(&op->dev, "%s: irq_of_parse_and_map failed\n",
+ irq = devm_irq_of_parse_and_map(&op->dev, dn, 0);
+ if (irq <= 0) {
+ dev_err(&op->dev, "%s: devm_irq_of_parse_and_map failed\n",
__FILE__);
- rv = -EBUSY;
+ rv = irq ? irq : -EINVAL;
Here and in more places below you change the return value from -EBUSY to
-EINVAL when irq == 0. These changes and the reason for them is not
something that is commented upon in the commit message. Maybe these
changes were not intended or should be in a separate patch?
Although errno codes are quite unspecific, I can't think a valid reason
to return -EBUSY on [devm_]irq_of_parse_and_map() failure. It could be
-EINVAL or -ENODEV, but not -EBUSY ...
Since changing line that sets error code anyway, I decided to change
-EBUST to -ENODEV.
But I agree that this is not the topic of the patch.
IS it better to remove this change from changeset alltogether, or to
mention it in commit's log message?
Given that there are a lot of -EBUSY being returned in drivers/usb/host
- not just in these error cases, maybe it is better to not touch this in
this patch set.
Best regards,
Andreas Larsson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
