On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 4:35 AM huhai <15815827059@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > At 2022-06-23 21:25:55, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 3:21 PM huhai <15815827059@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> From: huhai <huhai@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> register_device_clock() misses a check for platform_device_register_simple(). > >> Add a check to fix it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: huhai <huhai@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c | 3 +++ > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c > >> index fbe0756259c5..c4d4d21391d7 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c > >> @@ -422,6 +422,9 @@ static int register_device_clock(struct acpi_device *adev, > >> if (!lpss_clk_dev) > >> lpt_register_clock_device(); > >> > >> + if (IS_ERR(lpss_clk_dev)) > >> + return PTR_ERR(lpss_clk_dev); > >> + > > > >Why not use IS_ERR_OR_NULL() instead? > > platform_device_register_simple() never returns NULL as it declared bellowing， > so use IS_ERR() to validate the return value should be enough. > > /** > * platform_device_register_simple - add a platform-level device and its resources > * ... > * Returns &struct platform_device pointer on success, or ERR_PTR() on error. > */ Fair enough. Applied as 5.20 material, thanks!
