> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:39 AM Kai Song <songkai01@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > It uses IS_ERR to judge the return value of
> > pcc_mbox_request_channel().If it is invalid, maybe we should use
> > PTR_ERR to get the correct return value.
>
> Either there is a reason to make this change or there isn't.
>
> If there is a reason, then what is it?
Thank you for your reminding, pcc_mbox_request_channel() has other return values like -EBUSY.
But I checked through the context , it seems -ENODEV is ok.
So this patch seems harmless but not needed.
Thank you for your time.
Kai
> > Signed-off-by: Kai Song <songkai01@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c index
> > bd482108310c..0bbb5fa27ce7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > @@ -503,7 +503,7 @@ static int register_pcc_channel(int pcc_ss_idx)
> > if (IS_ERR(pcc_data[pcc_ss_idx]->pcc_channel)) {
> > pr_err("Failed to find PCC channel for subspace %d\n",
> > pcc_ss_idx);
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > + return
> > + PTR_ERR(pcc_data[pcc_ss_idx]->pcc_channel);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > --
> > 2.27.0
> >
