On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:32:59AM -0800, Sean Wang wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:49:26PM -0800, Sean Wang wrote: > > > Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx> ??? 2018???11???21??? ?????? ??????10:13????????? > > > > > > > > The error cases of mediatek_gpio_bank_probe() would go unnoticed (except > > > > for the dev_err() messages). The probe function should return an error > > > > if one of the banks failed to initialize properly. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Fixes: 4ba9c3afda41 ("gpio: mt7621: Add a driver for MT7621") > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Patch was compile tested with: omega2p_defconfig, SOC_MT7621=y, > > > > GPIOLIB=y, GPIO_MT7621=y > > > > > > > > Patch is against 4.20-rc3 (localversion-next is next-20181121) > > > > > > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-mt7621.c | 8 ++++++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mt7621.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mt7621.c > > > > index 1ec95bc..68fca8b 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mt7621.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mt7621.c > > > > @@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ mediatek_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > struct device_node *np = dev->of_node; > > > > struct mtk *mtk; > > > > int i; > > > > + int ret; > > > > > > > > mtk = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mtk), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > if (!mtk) > > > > @@ -311,8 +312,11 @@ mediatek_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mtk); > > > > mediatek_gpio_irq_chip.name = dev_name(dev); > > > > > > > > - for (i = 0; i < MTK_BANK_CNT; i++) > > > > - mediatek_gpio_bank_probe(dev, np, i); > > > > + for (i = 0; i < MTK_BANK_CNT; i++) { > > > > + ret = mediatek_gpio_bank_probe(dev, np, i); > > > > + if (!ret) > > > > > > it should be if (ret < 0) ? > > > > I don´t think so mediatek_gpio_bank_probe() returns 0 on success > > and all other returns are error paths - while the current code > > only returns negative values I do thik that any non 0 would be > > an error indication so !ret should be fine here. > > > !0 would be true > ...sorry - stupid me - thanks for catching that ! thx! hofrat