On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 12:22:17PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > Hello Liu, > > On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:42:12 +0800 > Liu Ying <victor.liu@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 03/07/2025, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > > > 'ret' can only be 0 at this point, being preceded by a 'if (ret) return > > > ret;'. So return 0 for clarity. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/imx/imx8qxp-ldb.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/imx/imx8qxp-ldb.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/imx/imx8qxp-ldb.c > > > index 7bce2305d676714cdec7ce085cb53b25ce42f8e7..bee1c6002d5f84dc33b6d5dc123726703baa427e 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/imx/imx8qxp-ldb.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/imx/imx8qxp-ldb.c > > > @@ -665,7 +665,7 @@ static int imx8qxp_ldb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > > > ldb_add_bridge_helper(ldb, &imx8qxp_ldb_bridge_funcs); > > > > > > - return ret; > > > + return 0; > > > > I guess this is not the only place across the kernel tree where this cleanup > > could be done. So, maybe use some tools to cleanup them all? > > I had stumbled upon this as I was doing some changes to this function, > and needed to understand the code flow. Definitely 'ret 0' would have > made it immediately clear that all the code between the last 'if (ret) > return ret;' and the final 'return ret' is not allowed to fail. > > I think this change would (slightly, but still) improve future readers' > life. I think "return ret" at probe already become common sense for developer. No value to take efforts to clean up this. Frank > > Luca > > -- > Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > https://bootlin.com
