On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 16:18:55 +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 12:37:14PM +0530, Srinidhi Kasagar wrote: > > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 17:48:10 +0200, Lee Jones wrote: > > > drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c: > > > In function ‘synaptics_rmi4_resume’: > > > drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c:1090:18: > > > warning: ignoring return value of ‘regulator_enable’, declared > > > with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result > > > > > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c > > > index fe667dd..c4d013d 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c > > > @@ -1087,7 +1087,9 @@ static int synaptics_rmi4_resume(struct device *dev) > > > unsigned char intr_status; > > > struct synaptics_rmi4_data *rmi4_data = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > > > - regulator_enable(rmi4_data->regulator); > > > + retval = regulator_enable(rmi4_data->regulator); > > > + if (retval < 0) > > > + return retval; > > Does it make sense to add a dev_err? > > > > Is that a question? > > regulator_enable() already prints some warnings. Probably it's not > going to fail and adding code that is duplicative or will never be > run is pointless. It has become a habit checking the return value and spit some errors. And BTW, there are many drivers which does this way..Anyway if your intention is to avoid them for the new drivers..I dont mind skipping this.. regards/srinidhi > > regards, > dan carpenter > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
