On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:13:19AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > > Am 27.02.23 um 11:07 schrieb Dan Carpenter: > > The error codes are not set on these error paths. > > > > Fixes: 145eed48de27 ("fbdev: Remove conflicting devices on PCI bus") > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> > > with the comments below addressed. > > > --- > > drivers/video/fbdev/chipsfb.c | 14 ++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/chipsfb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/chipsfb.c > > index cc37ec3f8fc1..98398789528a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/chipsfb.c > > +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/chipsfb.c > > @@ -358,16 +358,21 @@ static int chipsfb_pci_init(struct pci_dev *dp, const struct pci_device_id *ent) > > if (rc) > > return rc; > > - if (pci_enable_device(dp) < 0) { > > + rc = pci_enable_device(dp); > > + if (rc < 0) { > > dev_err(&dp->dev, "Cannot enable PCI device\n"); > > goto err_out; > > } > > - if ((dp->resource[0].flags & IORESOURCE_MEM) == 0) > > + if ((dp->resource[0].flags & IORESOURCE_MEM) == 0) { > > + rc = -EINVAL; > > I think ENODEV is more appropriate. And it's the default value from the > original code. Sorry, I read the original code and my mind saw -EINVAL where it was actually -ENODEV as you say. Will resend. regards, dan carpenter